SiCKO

Well, I came into this film not expecting a whole lot. I have been taught to hate Michael Moore, and if I hadn't, I'm sure I'd be filling out papers to move to Canada right now. He made a very compelling argument, which is the direct theme and reason for a documentary to be made, to get your idea across to the general population. Michael Moore does a very good job of this.

I'm going to start out by discussing what I liked about this film. Moore moves through it very well. He starts out by showing these two fella's that cut themselves, but were unable to either go to the hospital or pay for the entirety of the surgeries. He talks to many different people, and does a very good job conveying the problems with our Healthcare system, then he goes to other countries such as Canada, France, England, and even Cuba who have Universal Healthcare, which is what this documentary is all about. He asks these people all of these questions that lead them into saying exactly what he wants to have on camera. One of the women that he talked to, the one that worked at the hospital that denied her husband treatment, ultimately leading to his death (in a way), had a very touching story that really makes the viewer pull for the Universal Healthcare campaign.

Moore pulls people together, and in doing so makes himself look like the good guy. When he looks like the good guy, anything he does it right. Ifso facto, Moore pulling for Universal Healthcare as the good guy makes it seem as if this is the way to go. The truth of the matter is that he skipped over MANY details that could have been covered. Mommy always said there are two sides to every argument. He presents one, and only one. He makes it seem as if he presenting both sides by saying things like, "Now wait a minute, how do they pay for this? It must be through taxes!" He then goes to the homes of these French individuals and asks them what they have to pay for, but he never even mentions the word taxes. Moreover, they probably mentioned it somewhere in there, but he edited it out or accidentally "lost" it. It's just a little too convenient that every single thing that the interviewees said meshed perfectly with the point that he was trying to get across. He also starts the movie off by showing this guy that cuts his knee open and has to stitch it himself, or a guy that cannot pay to have both of his fingers put back on. He then continues by saying but this movie isn't about them, its about the people that do have healthcare. What he leads us to assume, however, is that he is talking about the people with private healthcare, Americans with healthcare, essentially. He paints such a pretty picture, but skips over so many things. Initially when I saw the film, I was nodding along with it and thinking This fatty is a smart fella!! A few hours later, after thinking about the film the entire time, I saw more and more gaps, and it upset me how he uses other people to manipulate the audience.

Universal Healthcare, like anything else, has upsides and downsides. Sure, we don't have to pay ghastly bills for pills or appointments or surgeries, but we also don't have to pay even more taxes than we already do. My dad already pays 60 cents to every dollar on taxes, then he would have to pile even more on top of that! Sure we should all take care of each other, but that isn't what is taking place when people like my dad work their asses off, then other individuals claim to be trying to find work, and are continuously collecting unemployment. Once Obama brings this Universal Healthcare, my dad, myself, all of us are going to be paying not only to house and feed people who are lazy, but also keep them healthy. Its a huge cycle! They're fat and lazy and sitting at home doing nothing, then they to to the hospital with a blood clot in their leg from not moving for three days! I find it interesting that Moore makes this documentary to get us fired up about Universal Healthcare, and now I'm obviously fired up against it.

So, as far as the film goes, Moore did a very good job putting it together. As I have already mentioned, he is great at convincing those who do not understand in the first place what he is like. I don't know for everybody else, but I was looking for gaps, and thats why I found them. I think that in any documentary, one should look for gaps, because it is very obvious that they are only presenting the one side of the story. His music is sad at times, motivating and inspirational and exciting when it needs to be, and flat out happy when women have tears streaming down their faces. Oh this Michael Moore! He's such an angel! He's the most selfless man to ever live! And I'm sure that he doesn't want Universal Healthcare only because his fat ass is going to need a quadruple bi-pass!! Anyway, like I said, the film flows very well from story to story, almost making it seem more like a movie than a documentary.

The Matrix

The Matrix, as I have stated before, is a great film. Much better than it's successors. It takes one of the oldest, and certainly most popular stories in our history, and turns it into a blockbuster film about something that may seem different, but has many ties to Christianity.

You've got Neo, or Thomas Anderson, who seems lost and doesn't know what is going on, just knows that something is wrong with the world around him. He has heard only rumors of Morpheus, and searches for him for years. Morpheus allows Neo to see him, and he explains that 'life' is much more complex than we know, and that the Matrix is just a holding world, more or less. I know I don't have to explain this, but Morpheus is very obviously portrayed as God, and Neo is portrayed as Jesus.

When Morpheus allows Neo to meet him, he immediately lets him know that the pleasure is all his, and that he has been searching for Neo his entire life. He tells Neo that he is The One, and in sense bestows the weight of the world on him. Sound familiar? If not, go back to Sunday School. So Morpheus gives Neo a "choice," which isn't a choice at all because he knows exactly what the response will be. Enough religious talk, time to delve into the film itself.

The film fits into a few different themes. It fits into Technical Achievement because it had such great special effects and graphics. Even now, ten years later, you see people bending backwards and saying "MATRIX!!!" It was something that we hadn't seen before, and it was cool. It sticks out in everybody's mind when the film is mentioned. The other theme that it is would be Philosophical. It causes us as viewers to reevaluate ourselves, and shows that one person can do something. This is a very inspiring film, one that has much more depth to it than many people give it credit for.

How Keanu Reeves got this role is beyond me. Not that he didn't do well in it, but his portrayal as Bill or Ted or whoever the hell should have put him on the Naughty List for many many directors and production companies. I think that for Thomas Anderson, he was casted very well. He is a lanky individual who looks stoned all the time. I wouldn't have guessed that he'd play the commanding role of Neo terribly well, but he held up pretty good. Carrie-Ann Moss is an athletic woman, so visually she fit the role of Trinity. She also did a pretty good job with the acting. I think the most impressive casting choice by far was to cast Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus. He is a big dude!! He has a presence about him that commands respect, so this role was very fitting for him. They were all dressed in rags, but it would be obvious that Morpheus was the main man if one were to guess.

This was an action film. Although there wasn't completely nonstop action, the movie grabs you from beginning to end. The first scene of Trinity running away from the Agent was badass, the type that makes you sit up in your seat. This reminds me of something I've always said: "I can only read a book if it really grabs me in the first 10 or so pages." This movie does that. It doesn't start slow, wait around for awhile, then pick up speed. It starts out at 100 mph and doesn't stop til the credits roll. Even when Neo went to talk to the Auricle, which was arguably the most sombre point of the film, the audience is in the films grasp, just waiting to see what she says. This is a great movie that I always love to watch.

The music in it was my type of music. Pretty intense, and it kept the heart rate high. I really liked also how they played with slow-mo. When Tom Anderson's new little phone fell from the office building, when Trinity jumped to the adjacent building, when Neo jumped out of the way of the train; all these were intense and awesome.

Overall, it was a great film. It may not be for everybody, as some people don't like to look for symbolism in movies, as well as many people's dislike for violence and imaginitive film. Let them tend to their CareBear collection while we adrenaline jockeys of the world watch kickass movies like The Matrix. The last thing that I have to say is that at the time, directly following my first viewing of the Matrix, I was very excited for the next installation. I was definitely let down by both of them, however. Looking back, I think that Neo flying off into the heavens at the end of The Matrix should have been the end of the entire story. It showed that he had the situation all wrapped up, and it definitely would have sufficed in my mind.

Mike, just a reminder to watch Changeling, and also I watched Requiem for a Dream yesterday, blew my frickin mind!!

The Dark Knight

So, this was the must see movie that everybody had to go to the night that it opened. I know, I was there. I was also there two nights later. No big deal. Aside from the fact that Christian Bale is a total nut-case in real life, he plays Batman rather well. Notice I said Batman... Not THE Batman. Everybody who was annoyed by this, please raise your hands!! This completely depersonalized him. It made him seem less known, as if this were one of the first times that anybody had been talking about him. You would think that if he were breakin necks and cashin checks as much as we remember since we were in the thumb-sucking days, he'd be known as Batman, without the frickin THE. Stupid. The reason that it probably annoys me the most is just because this is the first movie, of what, maybe 7 or 8, that they refer to him as the Batman. Probably more like the batman, no capital B. Just upsetting.

Anyway, there was much more to this film than that, sorry Mike. We'll talk about the acting first. Without a doubt, Ledger was the man in this film. It would have still been a great movie, but it wouldn't have had the same jaw-dropping experience that it handed out if somebody else would have taken on the wacky role. Spielberg had it right when he said that the best thing that can be done is to cast a movie well. Nolan knew what he was doing (assuming he made the decision) in casting Ledger. When I first heard that he had the role of the Joker, I immediately thought of Nicholson, and I couldn't see Ledger playing this same role. Then I realized that I was right. He didn't do the same role, he played one that was much different. And better! It was unreal how he took the original, kooky role of the Joker, and kept it the same, while also making him an extremely ominous foe for (the) Batman. Even now, almost a year later, I am blown away by how well he played this role. It's unfortunate that he couldn't stick around to follow it up. The book talks about film acting and stage acting. The major difference, according to these writers, is the film acting can be must less "acted out." The expressions and voice inflections can be much less subtle, as there is no large audience sitting a hundred yards from the actor that needs to see these things. Ledger still played this role with stage acting, as far as I'm concerned. Everything that he did was very exaggerated. That is what made his role so amazing, though. He was completely mental and delusional, but at the same time, he saw his end goal and had an extremely complex plan to help him reach it. Now that we've covered Heath Ledger and his role, I think we should look into the role played by Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. I really think that he should have gained more recognition for this role. Has anybody seen Thank You For Smoking? This guy can act his ass off! Maybe it's just that he is one of my favorite actors, but I really think that the character development that he portrayed was obviously the most significant of anybody in the film, and he handled it very well. He was very convincing as the White Knight, and also as Two-Face, who was seconds away from potentially killing a young boy. I do feel, however, that they went a little overboard with his makeup as Two-Face. Whatever. Maggie Gyllenhaal was cast to clean up the role that Tom Cruise Jr. wouldn't have been able to complete. Finally, the confidant. Alfred was, as always, great. There is a reason why Michael Caine has been in more movies than almost anybody. He plays such versatile roles, and with such believability.

There are movies that make it big that have the "nameless" and "starless" casts. This movie wasn't quite the same. If you take a look at the names, it is very obvious that they were swinging for the fences on this one, and it ended up working out for them rather well. The people behind the scenes knew exactly what they were doing with this film. Once again, this movie was almost entirely shot with a subjective view. The lighting and color was used very well in the beginning of the movie when the faux batmen (its lowercased cause they sucked) were fighting the drug dealers and the Chechen's men. They stayed very well hidden in the shadows, which was convenient because it hid their hockey pads.

The protagonist and antagonist in the movie were very obvious: the Joker and (the) Batman, respectively. I have to say, however, that Alfred deserves some of the protagonist honor. He was the one that keeps Batman/Wayne in line. "You spat in the face of the criminal underworld, did you think you wouldn't get a response? Things were always going to get worse before they got better." This lights the proverbial fire under Wayne's ass, reminding him that he is the Dark Knight, and that these types of things will happen, but he needs to do something about it instead of giving up. Alfred is the catalyst that keeps this train moving.

The Dark Knight is a great movie, and I predict that it will be talked about for years and years as the turning point for the franchise storyline (Batman Begins was still a little elementary at points), and also as one of the most memorable single actor performances of this, or many generations. It seems like many movies come out that really should be awesome, like the second and third installment into The Matrix trilogy, as well as the most recent installment, dare I mention it, in the Indiana Jones franchise. Awful. My point is that The Dark Knight took these crappy movies and put them through a blender. The Dark Knight was better than its predecessor, Batman Begins, and I have to say I will be absolutely blown the F away if the next installment is better than this one was. Sorry for the harsh letters, Mike.

nydailynews: jack nicholson warned heath ledger on joker role

(sorry for some reason it won't let me paste...)

I think these guys make a very valid point. The movie is going to be huge, no matter what. And now, one of the lead roles dies, and it appears that it is linked to the character that he is playing. There is no way that we can watch this movie, and not be somewhat sorrowful. In every action that Ledger does as the Joker, we as an audience are reminded that this role took him away from us.

Like I said, this movie is a huge hit, so this did not hurt it in any way. If anything, it made us tune in a little more to the Joker's character and study his ways to understand what truly happened with Ledger.

CNN.com: Ledger fans demand the Joker retired from film

This is also a very interesting viewpoint that i surely would have never dreamed up. Michael Jordan had his jersey retired, why can't we have the role retired... The one question that comes to mind is this, would they be calling for this if Ledger had not passed away? No. They would have been calling for him to play the Joker again, assuming the role came up again. They would have been better off bringing up maybe somebody like Pat Tillman, a relatively unheard-of NFL player who lost his life in the fight across the pond. Would Tillman have had his jersey retired from the Cardinals organization otherwise? NO! I think their idea is a unique one, but also one that I will not support.

Slumdog Millionaire

Strait up, this movie surprised me. I don't mean to come down on the Oscars and the decisions that they have made before, but this was much different than I expected it to be, when looking at previous "Best Film" nominations. There were some movies in this list that I just didn't agree with. Films like "There Will Be Blood" just did not deserve the recognition it received. It was more or less the longest drawn out drama ever made, with a brutal scene at the end of the film.

Slumdog was great for many many reasons. It grabbed the audience right away. In the first 5 minutes of the film, Jamal is getting the crap kicked out of him, being questioned about who knows what. That was something I appreciated. You could tell they were trying to get an answer out of him by the things that they were saying to him, but at the same time, the viewer does not know exactly what they are asking of him, and why they are doing so. This immediately creates a bond between Jamal and the audience. We knew, one way or another, that he was innocent, and that these people were being inhumane.

So we start to dig a little deeper into the film and Jamal's character, as well as the character of Salim. The first time we see Salim, he is giving Jamal a hard time because he lost a customer to the outhouse due to Jamal occupying it. This causes Salim to let his brother down for the first time of the movie--with many of the occasions to follow--by locking him in the outhouse when the celebrity came. Salim let him down saying no to letting Latika in the cover with them when it was raining. Jamal obviously ignored this, and invited her in. Salim let Jamal down by putting the gun on him and kicking him out of the apartment, so that he could more than likely enforce his will on Latika. Next, he let him down by leaving for a number of years. Jamal finds him by searching for him, then they meet up again. Salim lets Jamal down again by capturing Latika with his gang at the train station, right as Jamal thinks he has her. In a weird way, all of these things that Salim does indirectly makes him the hero, or protagonist of the film. In the end, he becomes the hero by doing the opposite of what he's done his entire life: he selflessly lets Latika go to Jamal at the game show. In doing so, he knew he would die. His death was almost poetic. He had been betraying his brother his entire life, then when he finally does the right thing, he ends up dying. And what does he die in, but a tub full of money. Salim had betrayed his brother time and again for this money, and now it was surrounding him in death.

I'm usually not a terribly big fan of the flashbacks, but this film did an amazing job with them. I never got confused at all. There was never really a point that a viewer needed to ask a question, because the film spelled out the present time situations so well with the flashbacks. There would be points that the viewer would think to themselves, "Well how did he know that?" With each question that the host would ask Jamal, then Jamal would in turn get the question right, there would be a flashback. The fact that all of these flashbacks happened in chronological order right along with the questions, that was a little convenient, but lets face it, the entire plot was a little out there. Thats what makes this such a great film, though. It's one of those rare films that could happen, probably couldn't, but it could. These are the types of films, i reiterate rare films, that make us believe a little more in ourselves. These are the types of movies that people like Terrell Owens should not be allowed to see, because they are confidence boosters. They take your doubts and show them the heel of a shoe. Anyway, I thought that this movie did really good with keeping all of the different scenes and life stories in line.

The cameras did a good job at making the intense, violent scenes more real for the viewer. They made us feel as if we were sitting right there in the action, both with the the subjective viewpoint, and the intense sound effects. The same is done when the host is asking Jamal the questions. It appears as if Jamal does not know the answer at times. What makes this happen? The camera zooming in on him, showing his eyes darting back and forth, as if he is searching for an answer on the floor. The music is getting louder and faster, the host is making smartass remarks, and Jamal is saying nothing. Then, like a snap of the fingers, Jamal says the correct answer to the question, and the sound effects are gone, the camera angle as back to normal, and the stupid host has shut his pie-hole.

This movie was great and it deserves all the hype is has received. To think that it almost did not make the box office is ridiculous. Thank God Fox Searchlight has more sack than Time Warner, or I wouldn't be writing about this great film. The funny thing, to me anyway, is that as I would almost say this is one of the best films I've ever seen, it is one that I probably won't watch more than twice in my life.

Amelie

This is a weird case of review for the fact that I didn't really like the movie, but I will acknowledge that it was good film.  Sounds kind of stupid, but it's not different than not liking Tom Brady, although I know that he is very good.  It just wasn't my kind of film.  That being said, now we can delve into the movie.

Every character in the movie (for the most part) can represent a personality or emotion.  Amelie, for the first half of the movie, was selflessness.  She was out to help everybody else and make their lives better.  When Collignon was being so mean to her other friend who worked at the produce stand, she took it into her own hands by making him feel as if he were going insane, as well as publicly humiliating him so he knew what it felt like.  Collignon, himself represents grumpiness.  He was never happy and couldn't allow anybody around him to be happy either.  His helper represents our dreamy side.  He always had his head off in the clouds, and could get a giggle out of a funeral.  The man in the shop that Amelie worked at represented jealousy.  He was going from woman to woman, seemingly comfortable until he started obsessing over them and making verbal notes every ten seconds, until he pushed them away completely.  The woman whom Amelie hooked this man up with (Georgette, I believe) represents the characteristic of longing.  She was always longing for something good to come along.  Amelie was of course lying when she said this to the man earlier, but in a sense it was true, because she was so excited when Amelie simply told her that this man liked her.  Then as soon as Georgette and the man start seeing each other, she is longing to get out of the relationship because he is a nutcase.

The lighting in this movie was very bright and dramatic.  Everything that happened and the tone of the movie was completely dependent upon the lighting and color.  With the events and the sneaking around, this could have almost been a thriller, given it had different lighting, color, and also music.  The way the movie had been presented, however, was with a very upbeat tone.  Jeunet did a great job putting this together in that he took a movie which could fit many categories, and made it in a solid movie that pulled at a person's proverbial heart strings.  The audience becomes completely engrossed with Amelie and is rooting for her so much, that towards the end of the movie when Nino comes into the shop and she wimps out, you want to smack her and say "COME ON THIS IS YOUR SHOT AT HAPPINESS!!"  Any movie that causes you to root for the main character that much, to the point that you get upset, that makes for a good film.  The fact that this wasn't my particular genre of choice does not change the fact that it was a great story, and very well edited, directed, and acted out.  The main point in the film that i caught a point of view that was a little different was when Amelie first looked out through her window at her neighbor who was painting.  It showed both her head and him, so it was almost as if the audience were peering down with her.  When she had Nino climb to the top of the hill, just to distance him so she could put the album in his saddlebag, they showed her from the great distance, allowing the viewers to get tense because we knew that he wouldn't be able to make it back down there in time.

Amelie was a weird gal.  She probably didn't have more than twenty lines throughout the entire film, but she was still the main character.  She'd probably rock the roll of Helen Keller.  Too far?  My bad.  She kept the movie going with all of her glances at the camera.  That always made the viewer feel that much more connected to her cute and bubbly character.  I would say that the main theme and feeling of the film was that spiritual and personal development takes place along a long span of time, and helping others is a very important step in acquiring these things.  It was very obvious that Amelie was much more focused on helping others than she was with helping herself, until towards the end of the film where she started to help herself along little by little.  Nino was apparently on the path to spiritual and personal development as well, or else he wouldn't have put so much effort into being with the girl that practically cold-shouldered him after telling him where to meet her.  He was at first interested in what she looked like, as he was asking his co-worker, but it became evident that he was very much attracted to her personality as well.  

Artistic or Visual Design

American Beauty

1. The location of the set is very important to this particular movie.  The beginning of the movie starts off by basically telling us how worthless Spacey's character, Lester is.  Right after they show the little video clip of Jane telling Ricky (facetiously) that she wants somebody to put her father "out of his misery."  The film then cuts to the opening credits, with Lester saying that he is a loser for reason 1, 2 and so forth.  When this is happening, the first visual imprint, directly following Jane's monologue, is an overhead shot of Lester's neighborhood.  It is vast and very much uniform throughout.  This shows that he is truly a person who is lost among other individuals, and that he really doesn't matter, as his wife and daughter don't deny throughout the entire film.

2. The reason that the majority of the movie is shot at the Burnham residence is to show that they appear to be the same as everybody else.  A family that eats together stays together, isn't that how the old mantra goes?  Well thats not the case with this family.  They do all the things right, but they seemingly hate each other.  It shows that no matter how 'normal' some people may appear, they can be just as messed up as anybody else.  The house is a symbol, a veil, over the eyes of society.  Much like a veil, the house doesn't quite cover everything up.  Individuals on the outside know that something just isn't quite right with this family, but it hides most of their insecurities and harmful tendencies.  Carolyn is so focused on appearing successful, but that is not who she is.

3. The costumes are much like the house, they show that everyday suburbia is not what it always seems.  Lester very clearly wears what his wife wants him to.  He's not happy wearing a sweater vest.  If it were up to him, he'd pull a George Costanza and be draped in velvet all day, working out and smoking grass.  Jane is a cheerleader, but her clothing shows that she is anything but the stereotypical airhead cheerleader.  She wears grandma sweater type clothes, very much something that a poetry student would wear.  Her clothes say that she doesn't care what anybody thinks.  Carolyn dresses to impress, always trying to put out the image of success.

4. The lighting is not very much one way or the other.  During the fantasy sequences, the colors are very sharp and pronounced, but there is never any real sharp lighting.

5. He is showing that this is everyday life that is happening in the film.  It is not too bright as to create an illusional world, and it's not too soft, which also makes the viewer feel like he isn't actually there in the action.  Keeping the lighting the way that the director does will keep the viewer feeling like everything is real, and helps them to become more engrossed in the film.

6. The color red was by far the most prominent.  As was mentioned in the article we were assigned, it was the color of the roses that were being cut at the beginning of the film, the color of the Burnham's front door, and they also incorporated blood onto a white wall at the end of the film.  My first instict as to the meaning of the red was that it showed unreachable desires.  Red roses are a sign of perfection.  Carolyn wanted success more than anything, but she simply could not reach it.  The red door as Carolyn came home at the end of the movie, planning to shoot Lester, then coming in to see his red blood all over the wall, along with a pool of blood, showing that she would not be able to follow through with her "plans" because somebody else took care of it.  Finally, all of Lester's fantasies involved the red rose pedals with Angela, Jane's friend.  She was unreachable to him (until the end of the film), and she was always covered with the ever-vibrant red rose pedals.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

1. The movie taking place at the chocolate factory is obviously essential, as it is what the movie is based upon.  There are so many things in the film that take place in the factory that add to the mystery that the audience is lost in.  The ferry that they ride on through the river of chocolate, the machine that shrinks things and of course the mysterious drink that makes them float.

2. This film is shot on this location because the entire story is based around the location and the events that take place there.  All of the colors and singing set up such a happy mood to a movie that is deep and unexpected.  Tim Burton and Johnny Depp team up to remake this classic, and in turn make it even darker than the original.  It is a masterpiece however, because the average viewer, such as children (whom this film is made for) wouldn't understand the depth of this film, and of its director.  He makes the factory look like such an incredibly happy place, just to disguise that Wonka is actually a bit of a maniac.

3. The lighting is very bright, as all of the colors are extremely vibrant and cheerful.  The ferry ride, much like the ferry ride from the original, is dark and terrifying.  This lifts the curtain up a little and shows the audience that dark side of the Chocolate Factory, as well as the dark side of Burton.

4. The lighting is very appropriate.  As I said, it displays as a very happy and upbeat Wonderland, and at times turns out to be a factory that will take you in forever if you do not obey the strict- as some would say- rules. 

5. By the style of lighting, Burton is very clearly showing that the factory presents a facade that makes the eye believe that anything goes, but in reality they are very much in the real world, even though it doesn't seem like it.  Even though there are many things around us that we want- stealing, lust, anything- we must remain strong and gain character from delaying gratification.

6. There are no colors which stand out more than others, but simply a full spectrum of colors during the happier moments (which there are many) of the film.  Burton does this to show that even after catastrophic disasters such as losing a child in a pool of chocolate, we can still go on and be "happy" with bright colors, candy, and singing.

Good Will Hunting

Being one of my favorite movies, this one was very easy for me to sit through.  I actually even teared up a little when Will started crying.  It happens.  This is a great movie for so many reasons.  So much better than that stupid Titanic crap.  I am in utter disbelief that Titanic won the Oscar over Good Will Hunting.  Its sick.  

So you have Will, boy genius.  Is he happy though?  He certainly makes it seem like he is.  He doesn't want to go anywhere with his life, because he is "happy."  Doubtful.  As Sean unveils, he is anything but happy with his lifestyle.  He is scared.  This shows us how even if an individual is a genius, they can still be stunted.  They haven't had a chance to live life to the fullest for the simple reason that their mind has had too many things flying through it for the past 20 years.

Will starts to get happy with Skylar, and instantly he pulls away from her because he doesn't want her to drop him.  He thinks that he is protecting her, or himself even, and really he is just making the situation more difficult.  Both of them were completely miserable while they were apart.

Every movie needs a hero, you might say.  There is always going to be somebody that comes in and saves the day, takes the climax of the movie, and throws it in the proper direction.  Who was the proverbial hero for Good Will Hunting?  Most would probably say Sean was the hero.  I'm not saying that this is entirely incorrect.  Sean helped him grow in many ways that he had been needing for years.  This is definitely something that helped push Will in the right direction, towards Skylar and California.  But what actually did it?  What probably had the biggest influence on Will leaving?  Ben Affleck.  Who would have thought that this two bit actor (look at his other movies and tell me I'm wrong) would be the person to turn Will around.  "If you're still here in 20 years, i'm going to _______ kill you."  Here are some of the most powerful words in the entire movie.  Will's best friend is basically telling him to get the hell out of Dodge.  He tells him that it would be a slap in the face if he were still here, and that Will owes it to him and the other two of the gang to take this opportunity and be done with the manual labor.  Just like Sean says, these guys are his best friends because they would in a heartbeat take a bullet for him, smash somebody's face in for Will.  So here is Chuckie, the best friend, the one who is the most devoted, and he is telling Will to leave.  This is, without a doubt in my mind, the most determining factor for Will.  Chuckie ends up being the hero.

On to the dorkier parts of the review (no offense Mike!).  The cut the we viewed in class was in a 1.85:1 ration wide-screen, or American wide-screen format.  I don't know what other people think of the subject, but as far as I'm concerned, I think that viewing a film at Standard screen, 1.33:1, takes the movie experience out of the film completely.  You know what I mean by the movie experience.  You've got the popcorn, the soda, maybe even some Milkduds, and if you're lucky, a beautiful girl cuddled up in your arm.  So the only thing that can cheapen this is if you are even more removed from the movie theatre experience by having to watch in Standard screen, full screen as I know it.  If you're not actually in a movie theatre, you want it to be as realistic as possible, and the screen format plays into this just as much as a nice television and surround sound.  The film stock was a smooth-grain, as this movie was not intensely contrasted, but more blended and subtle.

Good Will Hunting told a story of man vs. self.  Throughout the entire movie, whether it was evident til the end or not, Will was fighting his inner demons.  He had plenty of people around him, trying to help him out, and he finally fought through the challenges presented inside his head.  It had a heavy Focus on Character theme.  This made the movie very much just about Will.  Even the title, Good Will Hunting.  What does this suggest?  Does it say that Will has been a rebel his entire life, and only through the help of his friends, does he become good?  This is open to interpretation.

The only real set in the movie that we were able to become familiar with was Sean's office.  This is where most of the learning took place.  I think that Van Sant did this intentionally.  By doing this, he made the viewer sit up in their seat every time that two duo were in the office, as they knew that something important was about to happen.  Rarely was the viewer let down.  Van Sant shot the entirety of the film in an Objective point of view.  The angles never really changed all that much, and we felt like we were the viewers the entire time, as opposed to feeling as if were were in the movie, part of the film.  The camera angles were generally straight-on, so as to not distract the viewer from what was being said and taking place.

Let it be argued, but this film definitely should have taken home the most coveted Oscar of 1997.  It was a great film that showed how somebody who is so strong can still be torn apart by his/her inner demons.  The idea in this movie is that everybody has flaws, and more importantly, everybody can work through said flaws.  Kudos to Damon and Affleck for this masterpeice