youngwriter2003

[youngwriter2003]

Finished!

No more reviews will be done for this year. I hope my film reviews were enjoyable. 

[youngwriter2003]

Parasite (2019)

RATING: 8/10

A son gets a job as a tutor. Then, he got his sister a job in that same house. After that, he and his sister get his father a house. And finally, through the actions of the father, the son, and his sister they get the mother a job. Seems harmless enough right? 

The 2019 Korean Film Parasite, directed by  Bong Joon-ho takes you on that journey with the Kims; Choi Woo Shik as Ki Woo, the son, Park So Dam as Ki Jung, the sister, Song Kang Ho as  Ki Taek, the father, Chang Hyae Jin as Chung Sook, the mother. And their parallels the Parks;  Jung Ziso as Da Hye, the daughter, Jung Hyeon Jun as Da Song, the son, Lee Sun Kyun as Dong Ik, Mr. Park, Cho Yeo Jeong as Yeon Kyo, Mrs. Park. 

The Kim is a family of four who is struggling for money. They are all highly skilled individuals but can't afford to use their intelligence for better use. Through the tutoring job that Ki Woo, on false pretenses, for the Park family. Ki Woo family slowly integrates themselves into the wealthy Park family in a heist manner. With all of the Kims working for the Parks in deceit, they find themselves starting to live a parasitic life.

As Ki Woo is recommended to a job working for a wealthy family, he learns how he can infiltrate this family with his own. His sister is first but with the name “Jessica” Ki Jung receives a job as an art tutor for the Parks' young son. Ki Jung concocts another plan ending with Mr. Kim as the new driver. Through deceitful acts, the family makes an available position of a maid for Mrs. Kim. Kims take advantage of a situation that ends with finding out the former maids husband is living in the basement, and the maid finding out the truth. Scurrying back home due to the Parks returning early, the Kims find their home flooded. With more mayhem at the Parks party the next day, the party turns into a blood bath ending with much death. With final words from Mr. Kim and his son, we are left with little hope for the Kim family, as they are worse off than before.  

Through a battle of classes, we see how both the Kims and the Parks infect one another. Using each other for their own gains. The Kims get jobs, and the Parks get employees that will do anything they say. This battle between the two ends with a surefire kill because that is a sure way that what happened between the two families will be remembered. 

Through the use of acting throughout the film, we see how the two families act, while they are benign, watched and how they act when they are alone. This film realizes the ups and downs that the characters take, and how they react to them. For example, the Parks never look down, they don't see the tracks on the floor in their basement for the seller’s door. They don't see the Kims hiding because the Kims hid under things. Weather and props are also key in the development of the film. The ran shows that they have opposites views on life, the rain. The Kims see it as it destroyed their home. While the Parks see it as a slight inconvenience on their trip as well as it cleared the air for them for their party. The key prop in this film is the rock that Ki Woo gets at the begging of the film. Ki Woo sees it like it will bring them luck and fortune, which it does as the family all find jobs. Then when everything goes wrong the rock is found submerged in water. The rock is also used to harm Ki Woo symbolized as a weapon at the end of their fortune. Finally, once everything is over Ki Woo puts the river showing that Ki Woo’s luck is now over. 

The foreshadowing at the beginning of the film we see the contrast between the Kims and the Parks. The Kims live in a basement where the highest place in the house is the toilet. While Parks has an open space layout for their home with many levels. The Kims even act as a physical parasite. Ki Woo tries for a better life and fails, but is crushed by the stone. Ki Jung didn't do any harm and yet is killed. Chung Sook had to fight for her life. And Mr. Kim who acts like a parasite though out ends up hiding in the basement for what seems like the rest of his life. The point where they all seem like parasites is when they are scurrying around trying to find a way out of the Park’s house. 

In the end, there is no Hero and anti-hero. There are key differences between the two families but they are all parasites.

It's obvious that this movie is trying to tackle the struggling fact that there will always be someone who has it better than you, and you will always have it better than someone else.

Even with the showing three levels of classes, we do not see the three groups interact until the end. We see that the only way anything was going to truly change was with death. Because that how everything changes for a while until someone else moves in. 

Movies that use Class Warfare and the class divide: 

The Purge (2013) - The Wealthy and the Poor 

Us (2019) - America vs The Clones 

Joker (2019) - Businessmen vs Everyday-men

In the end, nothing changed. See as Mr. Kim said “With no plan, nothing can go wrong and if something spins out of control, it doesn't matter. Whether you kill someone or betray your country. None of it f*cking matters. Got it?” because it's better to do nothing then try to do something and fail. 

[youngwriter2003]

Parasite (2019) - Extened Summery

As Ki Woo finds himself in a job working for a wealthy family, by recommendation from a friend, he learns how he can infiltrate this family with his own. Mrs. Park is very gullible, and Ki Woo takes advantage of that by telling Mrs. Park that he knows an Art Student name Jessica, that could help Mrs. Park’s son with his extraordinary creative ability, which is no more than the average child. But though the faules name “Jessica” Ki Jung his sister, seels her position by saying that Mrs. Park’s son is possibly schizophrenia, making the need for someone with the expertise as “Jessica” to treat the boy of his mental illness. With the two children and their new jobs, Ki Jung concocts another plan and gets the driver fired by leaving her underwear in the car, so that it seems that the driver had been having sex in Mr. Park’s car. This newly open position is given to Mr. Kim by reference from Ki Jung “Jessica”. Now all that was left was for Mrs. Kim to have a position in the house. Through deceitful acts, the family makes it seem that the Park’s maid has become ill with Tuberculosis, getting the maid laid off and the position available for Mrs. Kim, a suggestion from Mr. Kim. This is only the begging. 

As the Parks go away of a birthday family trip, the Kims make themself at home at their new place of work. All seems to go well till the former maid comes back to the house asking to retrieve something she had forgotten in the basement. What she forgot was her husband who had been living in a hidden seller under the house for over four years. Through a mishap, the former maid discovers that the Kims are related and plan on tell Mr. and Mrs. Park the truth. To add to the situation The Park is coming home early due to rain. Making the Kims scatter around trying not to be discovered. Once at home, the Kims, beside the mother, have found their home flooded and have to stay in a gym and figure out what to do about the maid and her husband. Where Ki Woo is anxious for a plan, his father believes it is best not to have a plan. They all return to the Parks for a birthday celebration for the son. With more mayhem, the party turns into a blood bath ending with much death. With final words from Mr. Kim and his son, we are left with little hope for the Kim family, as they are worse off than before.

[youngwriter2003]

Final Review: Parasite (2019)

[youngwriter2003]

Rear Window (1954)

RATING: 8/10

When one looks out the window, we look into others’ lives, whether the people on the street are unaware of your prying eyes, the front windows, and yes, especially the rear ones. People believe that they are safest when they are at home, where they can be themselves. When really they are safe, not when the doors are locked, but when the shades are drawn. 

Alfred Hitchcock’s 1954 Rear Window mystery thrill show how the boredom of L.B. 'Jeff' Jefferies in a caste played by James Stewart. As he pulls in Thelma Ritter as Stella and Grace Kelly as Lisa Carol Fremont. The women who assist Jeff end up being pulled into more than what they signed up for as they investigate the matters that occur at the Thorwalds’ apartment. 

Imagine not doing anything in the world but sit in your apartment for hours on end and look out your window. You wouldn’t be able to resist the urge to look out the window and pry into your neighbour’s lives. You see the woman that puts on a false show to entertain the men in her life, reflecting to the woman in your life. The noisy neighbour who is just doing an inferior job than you are. The composer that has all the women fall for him. Even those who felt they had nothing to live for. Along the line, you look to the apartment parallel from you and watch as an ill-minded man demonstrates suspicious acts towards his ill wife. How would you react? You would want to act and see justice, right? But what if you are wrong, and your hours watching this man has just made you gone mad, creating this story in your head? 

As we know, Jeff has become temporarily disabled due to a work-related incident. Through the help of his caregiver and lover, they investigate the possible murder of Mrs. Thorwald. With so many side plots of Jeff’s other neighbours, you can't help but wonder if Jeff’s peeping is making him lose his mind or if Mr. Thorwald did make his wife lose her life. 

Shot composition and camera angle play a crucial part in this film’s storytelling. First, considering you never see anything outside of Jeff’s apartment, and not from the perspective of anyone outside of the apartment. Other than at the end, symbolizing how the apartment itself was keeping the viewer in one perspective. This is evident through the shot composition that shows into the other apartments only from afar range as if you are looking out of Jeff’s window. Second, the camera angles help the viewers see only Jeff’s story; you look into others’ lives through what Jeff sees from his apartment and perspective. 

As stated, the camerawork stayed in two spots throughout the majority of the film. One is looking inside of Jeff’s apartment, and two looking out from Jeff’s apartment. That was a clever element that Hitchcock brought to this film; he did something that made sure his viewers saw what he wanted them to see. If the viewer only has a perspective or two to watch, they can't sway far from the story that is to be told. So Hitchcock controlling that one aspect really creatively directed the entire film. 

I think that having that way of filming is very controlling. But that’s the kind of impression  Hitchcock gives. He is a very demanding director, and he wants the viewers only to see what he wants them to see. So you can't really expect any easter eggs in his films because if he wanted you to see it, it would be in plain sight. 

The film gave off the impression of a murder mystery novel, with many of the facts being unclear since many times, you can't see precisely what Mr. Thorwald is doing. There is a lot of uncertainty in this film, keeping you on edge till the end of the film. Sadly making it one of those films you can only ever honestly watch once and never have the same reaction to the end again. 

The real-world aspect of this film is that everyone looks into others’ lives all the time. We are just a bunch of people who pretend not to be Peeping Toms. We think since we wouldn't want anyone to look into our lives, we don't look into others. It has become a subconscious thing, and we ourselves are unaware that we do it from time to time. Yes, Jeff is our central Peeping Tom, but near the end of the film, everyone can't help but look outside when they hear their neighbour cry for their dead dog. It had nothing to do with them, but yet they looked; this is the only time you look at the neighbours from a non-existing perspective to see their shocked faces. Jeff says, “In the whole courtyard, only one person didn't come to the window.” he says this, deeming Mr Thorwald guilty because he didn't look out his window. Saying it has become customary for others to look into others’ lives and peculiar when you don't. 

Films where the main character peers into others life: 

American Beauty (1999) - Ricky

Disturbia (2007) - Kale 

Under the Skin (2014) - Laura

Other than the apparent mystery murder aspects of this film, it is clear what the message is, as it is said within the first 10 minutes of the film by a supporting character: “We've become a race of Peeping Toms. What people ought to do is get outside their house and look in for a change.” well said, Stella.

[youngwriter2003]

Casablanca (1942)

RATING: 7.5/10

A lot of students have probably never seen Casablanca, but they have heard it. This film has been heard throughout the generations due to its lines. It is so quotable that even though they may have never seen it they have heard “Play it Again Sam” which is ironic because the real line is never said in verbatim “Play it once, Sam.”. To be fair, Casablanca is fairly aged, and many children wouldn't bother to watch the film due to its missing color. 

Casablanca from 1942 is a Film noir German expressionist melodramatic documentary. That took more than one or two people to get the film together. However, it's credited director  Michael Curtiz, with the cast of Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine, Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa Lund, Claude Rains as Captain Louis Renault, and Paul Henreid as Victor Laszlo; have been accredited to the films susses. 

As just stated this film wasn't just credited to one or two people, in fact, this film proves that there are no small actors just small roles. Every person that was in or created this film conveyed an important piece to this film. Every actor gets at least one scene to show their skills. Making their character important and memorable. And that is just what the viewer sees. The editing took it's part in the overall pacing of the film. Considering the times, the film actually is at a faster pace compared to the other films of the time. There are no shots that are especially dwelled upon. There is a lot of visual information in every shot it is just that you aren't given the time to process it. (Making many want to rewatch scenes or the whole film over and over again) --- Symbolizing the dramatic stakes of the time; through, pace urgency. Making every single thing that was in the movie have high importance. 

We watch the unfolding events in Casablanca during the Second World War, mainly through the protagonist Rick the owner of Rick's Cafe Americain; another form of symbolism. Like the travels of his former lover, Ilsa and her husband ask for Ricks’s assistance to help her husband Victor, to escape to America to continue his work. During this venture, Ilsa’s old feelings for Rick sparks again and she finds herself in love with Rick once again. Through a twist of the world, Ilsa and Rick do not get their happy ending. 

The most important plot element to this film is the acting. Both Bogart and Bergman portray one of the most iconic love stories and yet they don't end up together in the end. Through the element of Time during the Second World War, Bogart and Bergman show the passion that the two characters have despite the fact that the two characters have to let one another go. Showing the characters falling in love with a look. Bogart detailed, meticulous, and precise acting is far more intentional than his other roles in other films. While his counterpart Bergman listens to “As Time Goes By” she is staring off to nowhere, taking the viewers somewhere far away, with just one shift of her eyes. 

The conscientious decisions through all the emotions in the film we see the Camerawork have the largest emotional effect, with the smallest details. The lighting though out the film is specific to the main character of the film showing the personality of the character portrayed on their skin. The half and half lighting is shown on Rick’s face, reflects the inner torn conflict within him, in his transitioning period. The soft light is shown on Ilsa’s face, reflecting the delicateness of her heart and her feminine beauty, making the viewers sympathize with her. And finally, the bright light beaming on Laszlo he is a symbol of hope, therefore, bright lighting fits his personality.  

In my opinion, I gravely believe that Rick is the embodiment of America, how at first they lost the urgency to help the world but though personal lost it and he found it again, the willingness to help others. Ilsa is the showing of love and how both she and Rick want to obtain it but the world keeps getting worse, making love harder to grasp. Laszlo may come off as a one-note character who is actually someone who isn't missing anything, that nothing gets past him. He picks up on the love that both his wife and Rick have, but chooses to not see it for the better of the world. This movie is filled to the brim with cliches, but as Umberto Eco puts it “Two cliches make us laugh. A hundred cliches move us.”. Casablanca itself is a melting pot of many different cultures all trying to find asylum from the prison that is Casablanca, trying to get away and find safety. 

The romance in this film never stood a chance. The film is trying to show the viewer that even loves itself can't survive the real world. That in the end the world’s twisted effects is the reason that Rick and Ilsa were never going to ended up together. The love story subverted to the reality of the real world. True love does not prevail.   

By showing that there are bigger things that are more important in this world than love we see that happily ever afters doesn’t really exist, because the real world isn't a fantasy. “Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that.” 

Films where the lover don’t end up together in the end: 

The Way We Were (1973) - Hubbell and Katie 

Titanic (1997) - Jack and Rose 

Chasing Amy (1997) - Holden and Alyssa 

Rick, in the end, shows how he and America have now stopped running from their true self the sentimental idealist, and now have become self-aware. “Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.” 

[youngwriter2003]

Forrest Gump (1994)

RATING: 8/10

People say the reason why Forrest Gump was such a terrible film was due to its historical inaccuracies. However, the problem with the movie was that its most popular quote didn't help people understand the film as much as it should have. “My mama always said, 'Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get.”. People should have understood from that point that this movie was going to be something completely unexpected. Instead, this whole movie seems like every ridiculous run-on of historical events, from the clear perspective of an autistic man played by a well-known actor. When this movie is all about the chances of things happening and destiny. Yes, it was a film; therefore, we can never know if somebody was destined to be part of all these events. But for now, we know that we could view the life of Forrest Gump, a man who lived one heck of a life. 

Forest Gump was a controversial Robert Zemeckis 1994 piece that showed how Zemeckis could use his special effects skills with historical clips. Starring one of Zemeckis’s preferred actors Tom Hanks as Forest Gump. We hear from his perspective as he tells random strangers at a bus stop about his life. Depicted through historical moments that he accidentally experienced. With a talented supporting cast of Gary Sinise as Lieutenant Dan, Sally Field as Mrs Gump, and Mykelti Williamson as Bubba, none of them measured the effects that one Robin Wright as Jenny Curran had on Forrest’s story. 

What you can take away from his life is that he took part and viewed so many aspects of American history. He met his fair share of presidents, witnessed the integration of the University of Alabama, took part in American teams, and served in the Vietnam war. Forrest was on the journey of the American dream. He went to college, served his country, so all that was left was having a stable job and starting a family. Forest took a different approach for those last two. He became an entrepreneur of a shrimping business, taking stalk in Apple, and once that made money, he no longer needed to work. Through “a stroke of luck”, he reunited with his childhood friend and had his first romance, which ended in heartbreak. Gump never did anything that he wasn't told to do by others. He never had a purpose, so he chose to start running. Just because he felt like it one day. Gump got a football scholarship, was awarded a Medal of Honor LBJ, survived Hurricane Carmen, became a millionaire, and then wrapped that all up with striking the nation with running across the country five times. 

Forest life starts in Greenbow, Alabama, where we understand the basic facts that Forest has strong legs but a crooked back and slightly below-average intelligence. He had a mother who supported Forest through all his hardships and his childhood friend Jenny. When being tormented by bullies and motivated by Jenny to run as fast as he could, Forest learned to do so. He took that skill and got himself into University. During the war, Gump came across a man that Forrest would soon call his “favorite best friend” that Forrest met in training, Benjamin Buford "Bubba" Blue, and a lifetime friend Lieutenant Dan. He promised Bubba that he would buy a shrimping boat, and the two would be captains together. When rehabilitating, Forrest learned another skill of ping pong that got him on to the American team. After that, he kept to his promise to Buba and bought a shrimping boat, getting Lieutenant Dan to be his first mate. By luck, they became millionaires. After his hardships, he finally does something that he wants to do. He started to run, and that short run of his became one that lasted three years, two months, fourteen days, and sixteen hours. Home again, he receives a letter from Jenny. We then find out that the bus stop he was at was him on his way to Jenny. When they meet again, he finds out he has a son and marries his childhood friend. Closing his life with one of the first things we saw him do, him waiting at his son’s school bus stop. 

Gump quickly sums this movie up in the end. You have to understand that Gump’s life shows you that life is just a bunch of random events; whether it was accidental or destined, you never know what’s going to happen, which is also symbolised with the feather at the beginning and end of the film. The mood is set as a comfort piece, of sorts, depicting that anything can happen. People chose to think that the overuse of historical events made the movie worse. But when really you should understand that anything could happen right in front of you. You won't know how much of an impact it is until you reflect on it while reminiscing on the past.

This movie’s main element is focal distance and definition, as Zemeckis used established shots to show the events that occurred and zooming in on Forrest. Hence, you understand his narrative point of view. We see how Zemeckis can use Tom as a prop within the film that already existed to move Tom to make sure that he seems like he was in those clips, to the untrained eye. Tom’s acting helped you understand the kind of person that Gump is. He portrayed a kind-hearted man that would never intentionally hurt anyone. 

It was enjoyable to see how special effects interacted with historical events. It showed a creative side to the film, with a character that takes part in actual historical events placing them carefully into the events instead of dramatising it in glorified stories. 

Films that follow characters throughout the ages: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) - Benjamin

The Butler (2013) - Cecil 

The Age of Adaline (2015) - Adaline

The quote I believe Gump should be known for: “I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floatin' around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both. Maybe both is happenin' at the same time.”. We are all floating around like feathers. 

[youngwriter2003]

Lord of War (2005)

RATING: 8/10

War is a funny thing; no one ever wins. We can never be sure that if we don’t go to war that someone else won't. So is it so wrong to believe that it's the better of two evils when you are one of them? 

Andrew Niccol’s 2005 film Lord of War stared Nicolas Cage as Yuri Orlov, who shows you the underbelly of arms dealing. He pulls his younger brother Vitaly played by Jared Leto, into the business. They sell in various wars, from those in the 1982 Lebanon War to the Sierra Leone Civil War. Pulling the attention of Interpol and, in particular idealistic agent, Jack Valentine, played by Ethan Hawke. 

To put it straight from the horse’s mouth, “You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil.” Yuri says, proving a dark and inevitable truth, the world only runs if someone is willing to be the bad guy. He starts as someone who just lives through life just like anyone else, making it easy for you to see him as anyone. Ending with him inevitably becoming an arms dealer. So we get to know a host face of many, many people in this world who profit from the same thing as everyone else—guns, firearms, tanks, helicopters, and yes, blood. 

Once Yuri has his bit of success with a few bumps and corpses, he goes after his dream girl after a trip with his brother to a rehab clinic. He goes about living his double life till lovely agent Valentine intervenes, telling Yuri’s beautiful wife the truth. Yuri complies with his wife’s wishes, only to later comply with his friend the Lord of war when he knocks on his door—pulling him back in—getting his brother killed. A sloppy job on behalf of a coroner, Agent Valentine finds the bullet that finally gets Yuri right where Valentine wants him. Until Yuri points out something very simple to Valentine, yes, Yuri is evil, but he is not the worst; he’s just the only one branded as so. Where we get this wonderful anecdote about the United States of America: “And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss, the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year, sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying.” proving how it's good to shake hands with devils when you’re one as well. 

What was interesting about this movie is the tone and mood are pragmatical, yet it is fictional. It takes a bigger evil than what was portrayed on the surface. On the surface, it seems like a movie showing you the world of guns deals in the mind of an unstable man. At the same time, he offers you many stories in one. Yet still shows his selfishness to make him appear as an individual when he is most of the leaders in this world. 

In many movies that Letto has been in, it has something to do with losing a few of his brain cells, either through drugs or sanity. Letto’s character Vitaly goes through the motions of the fall-around brother, the recovering addict, and goes through a morally round revelation. All of them take place in one scene in the beginning. With one prop, a sign,  “Be aware of the dog”, pulls you to a side story for a moment. Vitaly talks about how he has a dog within him. He was talking about how humans have a primal instinct to be feral. No matter how human we act, we do what’s an instinct for us at the end of it all. Yuri has excepted that dog part of him and no longer cares to act human. Vitaly has come from Yuri and believes that the dog is something he should contain and be afraid of. With biblical views, it refers to how animals are inherently evil creatures that can sway humans. So to say that humans are dog-like, it's to say that humans are inherently evil. Showing the difference between the two, making the last part of Vitaly’s story justified because he could no longer be the fall-around brother; he wouldn’t let the dog control him anymore. 

Yuri seemed like a very technical character. He had a way of owning what he wanted without even paying for it. He took on the personification of a necessary evil. You may predict when watching the movie that he will grow to either accept what he was, stay ignorant, or change. The last one seemed less likely while the film continued. At first, your opinion of Yuri may be that he is honestly a weak man with a strong front. He acted like he had the world in the palm of his hands when really all he had was a pass in this world. He had warlords calling them his friends. He had a government unable/not wanting to catch him. Yet, he was able to get the girl of his dreams while he had nothing. And lost her when he had everything. He was fooling himself. 

It is obvious how it connects to the real world; Yuri represents many people, from those in the governments that stand for peace to those that lust over their power. 

Yuri cleverly stated, “Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves ‘freedom fighters.’” that was supposed to scare you; I found it comforting it's an undeniable fact in this world that many must learn. 

Films with the protagonist as the bad guys:

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) - Jordan

Nightcrawler (2014) - Louis 

Joker (2019) -  Arthur 

Honrabale mention (TV Show): 

Sopranos (1999) - Tony 

A closing thought that should be taken away from all of this is: “They say, ‘Evil prevails when good men fail to act.’ What they ought to say is, ‘Evil prevails.’” Yuri Orlov. Gotta love a good excuse. 

[youngwriter2003]

Dark Knight (2008)

RATING: 8/10

Chaos is only such without order. Yet we see the Knight of Gotham attempting to do so, creating more chaos. We see how much power an unhinged man has when all he wants to see the Bat dead. We see how the White Knight burns from doing the right thing every day; to having 50/50 shots at doing so on his worst day.  

The Dark Knight of 2008 was the sequel to Christopher Nolan’s Batman’s live-action adaptation trilogy, bringing back Christian Bale as the Knight. In addition, Harvey Dent brings to the story as Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger as his Joker. The three are the movie’s main focus. Showing the three pillars of both Gotham and the film. 

We know the first, Batman the Knight of the night, represented extreme stability, sacrifice, and the capacity of good inside of everyone. Our new pillars, the Clown Prince of Crime, represented humanity's extreme inner madness and opposition to change. And the White Knight represents the individual and society being pulled between the two extremes, showing how nobody is purely good or evil as an individual.

The order between these pillars is Jim Gordon, played by Gary Oldman, working with Batman. Those two had the same goal: to save Gotham and Rachel Dawes, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, from crime. The two feel as if they failed when Joker succeeded at one of the “twistings of the hand” experiments, where the Bat accidentally saved Dent instead of  Rachel. Joker gave these two a little push. For the Bat, Joker wanted to push him off the line he stood on, the line of heroism and vigilantism. And the flip of the coin for Dent of right and wrong. Showing what the “good” pillars of Gotham do when they have their worst day. 

Many people believe that this is a movie of chaos and order, which is correct, but people believe that for all the wrong reasons. Are you going to judge a man at his worst? Gordon and Batman didn't think so. They said what Dent did in those 48 hours of his worse day was Batman, because yes, sadly, people will turn against you when they see you at your worst. But that doesn't mean that Dent was a bad guy. You have a friend for your entire life, and the day that the person they love dies, they go off the edge. Are you honestly going to believe that they are gone forever? That it doesn't mean that they can't change back just as quickly? What Joker did show was how good, reacts to a bad day. Batman was supposed to kill Joker, and Dent was supposed to replace him. But he didn't kill Joker, and Dent’s reputation didn't become tainted. Joker brought chaos into a stable situation and wanted to see who would crack; he hoped both would. But it backfired. Dent died, and Batman replaced Joker. Showing the chaos within society.  The White Knight became evil. The Bat that was good within everyone became hated by all. And the Joker showed that everyone needed to hate the Bat just as he did. 

We have to credit Ledger’s immense acting. Ledger took it to the next level; he added a whole other aspect of joker that hasn’t been seen on the big screen. He was the clever psycho that had high intelligence with a sick sense of humor; that brought so much chaos to Gotham that he took Batman’s chance to be the good guy and made the Bat the villain. This wouldn't have worked as well as it did without Ledger’s lisp, growls, and licked lips. He brought nearly the entire mood and tone of chaos. His physical actions of having his Joker slightly hunched, head tilt with messed up white face paint and blacked-out eyes. The makeup choice of Joker having physical scars instead of a broad smile helped made the jump from crazy clown to scary maniac. Ledger was probably the best original Joker ever put on the big screen. Yes, you have to give credits to the originals, but Ledger broke the clown out of his straight jacket. 

Bale and Ledger were the first to bring a darker twist to the duel’s fight. The bat and Joker always juxtaposed the two; Batman was the Dark Knight, that's true, but the joker was always a light-hearted jokester, he was a villain, but he always put a smile on everyone’s face without having to get a knife involved. Bale probably brought up the Knight to a brighter place for always standing for stability and sacrifice, yet Ledger gave the Clown Prince of Crime intelligence and purpose instead of uncalled-for jokes. Thus, proving that the Joker could stand on his own, which means the Joker movie of 2019. As well as establishing lost causes like Zack Snyder’s universes could be saved by a Clown and a Bat talking. 

I honestly think the movie is overrated. It deserves the praise, but as I said, it's getting it for all the wrong reasons. There were many times that the movie took that extra mile that didn't make that much sense. Like making Harvey Dent the White Knight. I think that Two-Face should only have been a good guy in a flashback. It doesn't make much sense that a character like Two-Face was ever seen as Gotham’s hero. It made his fall from grace not as believable as it could have been. 

The deeper meaning of this movie was the world needs a necessary evil; even if they aren't the real bad guy, everyone needs someone to hate. So first, it was Joker, then it was supposed to be Dent, but it ended up being the Dark Knight, which always ends with chaos. 

Films with vigilantes: 

Dardevil (2003) - Matt (Dardevil) 

Taken (2008) -  Bryan 

Kick Ass (2013) - Hit-Girl/Kick Ass

Gotham is to be a city run by crime, and yet, it is run by games like chess, cards, and heads or tails. The games that we play as children are games that give these shining pillars their power. Let’s hope not all childhood games can lead to such chaotic actions. 

[youngwriter2003]

Shawshank Redemption (1994)

RATING: 9/10

(SPOILER REVIEW) 

From the blood-drenched prom queens to ax-wielding husbands, it's wouldn't be an overstatement to say Stephen King is the King of horror books that have been adapted. Yet one of his most popular movies would shock some. Pulling back from clowns in the swears to an inmate in a swear, Shawshank Redemption shows a different side of King’s mind. 

The 1994 film that would become a widely known prison reference, showed the viewers the life of a banker Andy Dufresne played by Tim Robbins, who was convicted of murdering his wife and her lover and is sentenced to two consecutive life sentences at the Shawshank State Penitentiary. Where he meets a group of “innocent” felons and the only guilty man there, Red played by Morgan Freeman. 

The prison is your every mill prison, the guards that will beat you for nothing, the inmates that make bets for smokes, and the groups of queer inmates dubbed the Sister that everyone is very aware of. Andy on the other hand kept to himself, annoyed others in a way that the narrator Red described as if he wasn't even in prison. Though very unconventional years, Andy makes his mark in the prison, from the library he sent letters to get made, to the 10 feet tunnel used in his escape. Andy was aware that his fate was set in stone, but he was also aware that with the time that stone could break. Giving him the attitude that annoyed many as stated, but also gave others the sense of normalcy that they have long forgotten. On the other hand, we have Red, he believed at one point in the past that he could get out, but let the stone form him and was set in his ways, only to be changed by his new and then lifetime friend, Andy. 

Andy didn't have much affliction with the other inmates other than with the Sisters. He even went as far as making arrangements with a guard that awarded his friend’s beers, and later the near-death of his main attacker. Though his intelligence Andy finds himself working at the library, which isn't much of one, more a place where Andy would end up doing taxes for those that worked at the prison. A job like that let him used outgoing mail to get him a proper library, then works as a secretary for the warden. Most of which isn't on the legal side. After that succeeding there, he takes on a prodigy Tommy and helps him to pass the GED. During this, he figures out that Tommy knows the real murder that killed his wife and her lover. With attempting to get Andy cleared, Tommy loses his life, and Andy is on his last straw. From then on, Andy makes his final moves to freedom. 

The movie emphasizes hardships and injustice. It takes a chronological approach to show this man’s life. The movie is well-executed, it took a simple premise and showed you a cinematic master perspective of prison life. Yes, some credit is due to King, but the acting and settings took the words and made even the ungratified view realize that it was one of the best movies of the time. It doesn't take much for you to realize that the friendship of two inmates to the realism of the prison system, and the embezzlement ironically from law enforcement, took viewers on a needed journey to show perspective. 

There were many clever shots that showed the mind states of characters though out the film. But the acting and the dialogue really cared about the film. If it wasn't for Morgan Freeman narrating we wouldn't have been able to understand the movie as much. It was clever to show the movie as Andy as the main character and yet everything was from Red’s perspective. 

What I found intriguing about this movie’s morphing abilities. It starts off as a crim and punishment film. Then a striving in the fire. Next, the effect of the prison system on inmates once realized. After the hardship of a lack of power. And ends, somewhat on a buddy film. It's interesting how if you just watch it objectively your likely to the way that it's a prison movie. When really the main character isn't imprisoned. 

I think you have to take into account that this was a book first, all the overtone attributes that the film brought you to have to understand you find out later, that Andy almost never felt trapped. He had the little tunnel that made him feel sain.  

The deeper meaning of all this, on the surface, is criminal injustice, when really we see how for Andy salvation for him is escaping Shawshank, redemption is the price of salvation. 

Films that are fictional auto/biographies of a characters life: 

Forrest Gump (1994)  - Forest

Stand By Me (1986) - Chris

Rounders (1998) - Mike

Non-fictional honorable mention: 

Goodfellas (1990) - Henry

Look, if you are looking for your everyday mill scary King movie this isn't for you. Andy isn't going to go on some murder spree or meet a clown on his escape route. You watch as an innocent man endures the hardship of prison while Andy is escaping from Shawshank as his personal Redemption.

[youngwriter2003]

COMING NEXT: Shawshank Redemption (1994)

[youngwriter2003]

Contagion (2011)

RATING: 7.5/10

Think about a world where contact is feared, where people wear masks, where people have to stay in their houses, where people are scared of one another, where people die because of an easily dispersed virus. So now you probably are thinking of your world. Funny how that works. 

Contagion 2011, directed by Steven Soderbergh, was one of many films that many of us watched when we were put into lockdown during our extended March Break. Soderbergh depicted six different stories connected by one virus. Choosing acclaimed actors like Matt Damon as Mitch Emhoff.  Kate Winslet as Dr. Erin Mears. Jude Law as Alan Krumwiede. Laurence Fishburne as DrEllis Cheever. And Gwyneth Paltrow as Beth Emhoff. To help pull in many to watch this all-to-familiar film.  

Soderbergh creatively showed six stories. The first is a widowed Mitch, who was one of the first people in the States to be exposed to the virus and is just trying to protect his daughter. The next a two-in-one, Dr. Erin Mears, who first hand tried to find out how the virus got to the US, assisted by Dr. Ellis Cheever. This leads Dr. Leonora to go to Hong Kong to find the true origin.  Then we see the scientific side with Ally Hextall played by Jennifer Ehle. That leads to people like Alan Krumwiede, who is trying to profit from the virus with lies that it seems he even believes. 

These six stories go through the motions that occur with trying to handle a virus at this level. To break it down: first, contact; second, death; third, finding origin; fourth, quarantine; fifth, lockdown; sixth, trials; seventh, vaccine. The eighth motion would be going back to normal. Which other than a sweet gesture by a father and boyfriend, we don’t see. This is sad since it gives a lack of hope for a world like today. 

Going through those motions had a build-up of fear, moving from a step forwards to death. Soderbergh created a terrifying world that he probably never thought would come to this near fruition. In a close documental fashion, having dates, facts, tests, we saw a somewhat depiction of what would happen to the world. Sadly people no longer have to look at the film to see. 

The camera perspective was essential in this movie. Through clever angles, movement, distance, shots, and composition. Most of the camera angles had a horizontal view; when they had any other angles, they would be looking up at someone focusing on work. However, the shots of crucial information, like when people would touch their face or surfaces, Soderbergh chose to make sure that it was evident that people touch a lot more than they realise. The camera’s movement on characters shifted from many in the beginning to fewer and fewer throughout the film. Some of the blandest shots composed together to create a feeling gave people shivers. For example, having some shots be of empty malls said so much without even doing anything. On the other hand, having wide shots that viewed cities and villages helps focus on the importance of a crowded and not crowded room.

I honestly have no problems with the movie. It was put together well enough. Other than the needed dramatisations, it put what it wanted to get done, done. It scared the hell out of the viewers, with random shots of peoples’ dead bodies, etc. It's a movie that the viewers will remember differently. It got to keep its original impact for about nine years, but now with this world, it is more or less a false fragmentation of our current world. Making it seem more like a mirror reality. I don't think Soderbergh wanted it that way because I think he was going for another world effect, not our world.

The mood throughout the film is fear. Its impression to the viewer is to be scared of everything. That anything outside of your own home has been touched by something/someone else. Taking the phrase “you don't know where it's been” to a whole new level. Setting the tone and mood to have the viewers worry about the world around them, that a bit of cold could kill someone, it could kill you. Therefore, it leaves an impression to be afraid continually. Be afraid of the man sitting beside you on the bus.  Of the girl sitting in front of you in class. Of the little boy that wipes his nose on his sleeve. You don't know how ill they are until you are ill yourself.  

It did attack the unfairness of medical treatment to other countries. That a person should always sanitate themselves after doing a messy task. For example, if the chef cleaned his hands before meeting others, people wouldn't have gotten sick, and it wouldn't have started. Honestly, the world message that Soderbergh was depicting was to clean your hands and be aware of your surroundings. 

Connecting this movie to the real world is pretty simple. Almost everything, besides the massive deaths and the cure being raffled out to people at the end, this movie is our world. We went through quarantine, we had and have lockdowns, we have to wear a mask, people did and are dying from Covid. So here is hoping that this virus ends with everything going back to normal before more people die. 

Films that depict a pandemic: 

The Cassandra Crossing (1976)

Outbreak (1995)

Flu (2013)

We have to imagine that the realistic films we watch are just films, that it's doubtful that it would happen. We as humans want to keep normal as close as possible, to keep what we have, so much that eventually anything that disrupts the normal eventually becomes the new normal. So don't worry, everything is fine. 

[youngwriter2003]

COMING NEXT: Contagion (2011)

Out now!!

[youngwriter2003]

Hotel Rwanda (2004) and Shake Hands with the Devil (2007)

Hotel Rwanda RATING: 7/10

Shake Hands with the Devil RATING: 7.5/10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Films based on tragic events most of the time don't get the due justice that they deserve. That justice is found in documentaries. When comparing Hotel Rwanda (2004) and later Shake Hands with the Devil (2007) we get to see how Hollywoodism takes its toll on a film. One had we have a glimmer of hope, and the other the political harsher side of a truly terrible time. 

Hotel Rwanda (2004), directed by Terry George, followed a Hutu hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina played by Don Cheadle. While Shake Hands with the Devil (2007), directed by Roger Spottiswoode, followed a Canadian UN soldier Roméo Dallaire played by Roy Dupuis. 

Both movies were surrounding the Rwandan genocide in April 1994, having the majority of the massacre directed to the death of  Titus. The first, formed around a somewhat haven that was made out of the Hôtel des Mille Collines. And the protagonist is Paul who did do his best to help others, as well as his family as much as a father can. The second, formed around the UN’s perspective of the massacre. It pulled on Dallaire’s frustration with the situation, in a way the protagonist hated himself for the actions he couldn’t take. 

In Hotel Rwanda we follow Paul Rusesabagina from the near beginning, the middle, and the near end of the genocide. Paul has to deal with the struggles of being a Hutu man married to a Tutsi woman, so in preparation and caution, he makes establishes connections with military people as well as foreigners in case of an emergency. With the start of the genocide, Paul is most worried about how he is going to keep his family safe, which then slowly adjust to anyone who needs his protection as he slowly changes his place of work, the Hôtel des Mille Collines, into a refugee camp for those whose lives were at stake. Using all his connections he is eventually able to get his family as well as a dozen orphans onto a bus to safety. A nice Hollywood ending. 

In Shake Hands with the Devil, it took more of a political standpoint dating to almost a year before the genocide even started. Showing the unease of both sides and the points of aggravation that lead to the deaths in April 1994. How Dallaire ready but unprepared for the hardships to come. His frustrations and disappointment from his commanders and government. How he had to watch as thousands died, that if he did anything to stop it, it would have worse repercussions. Ending full circle with Dallaire’s flashback-and-forwards we see how much damage Dallaire went through as he had to endure shaking the hand of the devil and now has to take the wounds he bared with him for the rest of his life. 

As stated both movies show different aspects of the genocide helping with understanding the conflicts that occurred. I would have to say I prefer the hopeful story that Hotel Rwanda portrayed. I would not say that it was a better informer, Shake Hands with the Devil did a better job. The reason why I prefer Hotel Rwanda is that I prefer movies with glamorized emotion. It is an easier pill to swallow, in comparison to Shake Hands with the Devil that gave more of a harsh slap to reality. 

Hotel Rwanda relied on elements like Settings, Film Music, and Weather. While Shake Hands with the Devil portrayed harsher elements like Dialogue, Focal Distance &  Definition, and Real Colours. 

The first has the characters heavily relied on the Hotel itself. On the fact that the hotel was protected by an outside company, how foreigners were told to have been there so for a point it was protected by other countries. The hotel morphed into a haven for many people playing a crucial role in the movie. Though out the movie it relied on the additional emotional effect with sorrowful or aggressive music that manipulated how the viewer interrupted the movie. And finally with the Weather, whether or it was the weather that actually occurred, is beside the point. With having scenes that caused sadness, like when the guest and other foreigners were being led to the bus, it is raining, symbolizing the misery of the situation. Another example was when Paul was returning to the hotel and came across a road that had dead bodies all along with it. It was foggy so he had no idea that he was driving over the dead. And as the fog clears up a bit he is able to seem then, like as if he was coming to the realization of how many people were truly going and have died. 

On the opposing side, the second took more of a harsher side, with elements like  Dialogue that cared information to the audience about what occurred during it all. Since they went for more of a realistic aspect, more wide shots were showing the groups of people on both sides, the land that was fought on, as well as shots of Dallaire as he went to his therapist meetings. Also with Dallaire’s meeting, we see a more grey pallet to the scenes helping to differentiate the fact that those scenes happened after the fact, assisting the audience with the graveness of those scenes. 

The first movie still holds to the story but was highly glamorized. Yes, the movie is hard to truly understand and depict the terror that occurred, but I believe that Hollywood was too fearful of showing too much. Whether it be out of disturbing the viewer or getting too much wrong and dealing with the backlash. The second movie had a more serious tone. As well as follow a timeline rather than a story. It also took on the form of an emotional piece with the back and forward flashbacks that Dallaire has throughout the film. The overall dialog was in taste with having most conversations surround the injustice in handling the situation. Though the first movie had more of a glamorized tone than the second. 

Both movies’ impression was an attempt to share those stories of the massacre. The terror that thousands of people went through as their deaths were an act of uprising of the oppressed. There was anger on both sides of the Hutus and Tutis, as well as frustration on the rest of the world. The frustration of the UN soldiers in both movies. The embarrassment of the Daillare and those who recorded it all happen. And the lack of caring from the rest of the world as it happened, with the shocking realization after the fact. 

The deeper meaning to both movies is that an injustice occurred and near to no one did anything for them, that they saw what happened and thought how terrible it was that it was happening and just went back to their lives. Those people had the power to do something but didn't since it wasn't their responsibility to do something. That at the end of the day, people only truly in their nature care about themselves. 

This time I am not recommending similar films in the same genre. But rather other films that also depict the genocide: 

100 Days (2001) - Drama

Sometimes in April (2001) - Drama 

Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire (2005) - Documentary

Shooting Dogs (2005) - Drama 

Like I said before, many stood by and watched it from their TV and did nothing more than say a line or to on how sad it was. Specifically, Jack Daglish portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix in Hotel Rwanda saying it in the best way possible. “I think if people see this footage they'll say, ‘Oh my God that's horrible,’ and then go on eating their dinners.” because, at the end of the day, the rest of the citizens of the world, that was not truly affected couldn’t really give a sh*t. 

[youngwriter2003]

COMING NEXT: Hotel Rwanda (2004) and Shake Hands with the Devil (2007)

Juxtaposing two depictions of the Rwandan Genocide.

[youngwriter2003]

The Island (2005)

RATING: 5.5/10

From the time of its release, The Island is the most controlled Bayhem that Bay produced. Showing control in a world that shows Bay’s control for the first time was a shocking watch, not for the movie itself, but Micheal. 

The summer release in 2007 took Bayhemers for a slite spin and kept expectations for new viewers. We follow Scarlett Johansson as the impressionable and joyful Jordan Two Delta and Ewan McGregor as the evolutionary Lincoln Six Echo, supported by Sean Bean as their creator, having a god-like personality as Dr. Bernard Merrick.

In this futuristic modern world, we are introduced to a bunker being seen as the last safe place on earth other than where the movie gets its name, the island. From the beginning, Lincoln seems to be more intelligent than the rest of the people there since he asks all the right questions. This leads him to ask a Steve Buscemi character, James McCord, meaning just Steve Buscemi, leading Lincoln to find the dark secret of his home. Everyone who lives within this safe place is a clone (Agnate, they are called) of wealthy people outside to buy them and use them for organ harvesting. With this shocking revelation, Lincoln tries and successfully breaks out with his female companion Jordan. 

After the glass is shattered for our protagonist, they luckily stumble themselves onto  Buscemi’s character, where he doesn't automatically think that he should return the clones but should help them. After this, Lincoln and Jordan find their sponsors (the people they were cloned after) to fall in a series of fortunate events mixed in with a bucket full of Bayhem and a manhunt. With a clever and calm switcharoo between Lincoln and his sponsor, his sponsor was luckily shot, clearing Lincoln from the hunt. But, unfortunately, the peculiarities that were evident in Lincoln are also in other young Agnates. So the two are faced with the only other problem in the movie with having to save their friends now. And we are faced with a big finale that ends with an emotional longshot. 

Near the end of the film is where I start to have a problem. I could deal with the issues throughout the movie since even the film makes fun of it with a throwaway line like “I know Jesus loves you.” making fun of how the two characters can go through events where they would have died, but fortunately lived. In a sense, saying I know Bayhem loves you. The ending was a buildup that didn't pay off. At some point in Lincoln's escape, he was able to quickly walk past the crucial part of the whole building and not only understand that it's important, without any clear labelling, but he was also able to process how he would be able to take down the entire building. Which later he was able to execute. But with that to happen, the two had to make a plan to work to every point. One, Lincoln’s sponsor, was at the beginning of the plan still claimed to be Lincoln. Two, Jordan wasn't shot on site. Three, Jordan was successful in breaking away from her captures in the movie. Four, the two got to the institute relatively at the same time. Five, they were not recognised by the people that work there, after the two’s faces were plastered all over the institute. Six, once Lincoln could get to this crucial location, there were no codes or locks or a simple warning not to pull the lever. Nothing was stopping him. Seven that both were successful in their mission. And finally, even though the two were shot at various points, they were never dealt fatal wounds.

The movie was a shift in Bayhem that was an excellent relief from the Bad Boys movies and the Buena Vista Pictures films. We could see a different side to Bayhem that would start a ripple effect of Bay having a thriller than a chaos movie on and off, which would show in his later films. Other than the elements that made the movie worth watching, it is a Bayhem movie at heart. In the near beginning, the classic escape chases, then the manhunt chase, which keeps his title of explosions auteur, and the finale executed to have another explosion. If it wasn't for these three key scenes, you could mistake the movie for someone else's. Using elements like natural sound for his explosions is his signature element. As well as shot composition to show the main characters as well as the explosions that occurred in the same scene. Unfortunately, he only uses dialogue to pass information that he cannot make abundantly clear through his explosions. Making clear decisions not to use elements properly, his story execution is usually lost behind the loud sounds of explosions. 

I do not enjoy the extent of Bayhem in Micheal’s early films. I do enjoy the stories but not Bay's signature to the film. That's what saves The Island for me. I enjoy the futuristic approach to cloning and organ harvesting and the fact that to the year 2021, we haven't seen anything like this depiction of the year 2019 that this movie takes place. At this point, I would say this is a low point in Johansson’s acting. Yes, I know she is to be matured to the age of 15. But the two have a sexual awakening that is fitting but not needed. It made it evident that Johansson was the sex object. Jordan was an intellectual character, but since she was female, there was sexification to her, so that's what Johansson brought to it. Other than her, everyone brought themselves to the movie, Ewan McGregor as the clever hero, Sean Bean as the overhead, and Steve Buscemi as Steve Buscemi. 

This movie’s underbelly questions that at what point is someone deemed human? This question may be hard to answer, and the film doesn't quite answer that. Bay just opens your mind to it all. Understanding the basics of what it takes to be human is understanding that people always think they are human, whether or not someone else doesn't think they are. We want to believe that we are with the majority. But, at the same time, we don't want to be the minority. What you have to take from this movie is that it is easier to deem someone else as not human than not to be considered one. 

Action Movies that questioned who is human:

The 6th Day (2000)

Gemini Man (2019) 

Self/less (2015)

At the end of the day, what makes a person a person? Is it the fact that they live in a conformed society, have a life that conforms to others, have thoughts and feelings the same as anyone else, that they were conserved and born from two people conservatively? As technology and society grows and changes, how many humans will live their lives, not to these standards. So why do we have to have what it takes for a person to be a person? Why don't we look at when a person stops being a human? 

Greydanus, Steven. "The Island (2005) | Decent Films - SDG Reviews". Decent Films, 2005, http://decentfilms.com/reviews/island2005.  

[youngwriter2003]

V for Vendetta (2006)

RATING: 8/10

“Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.” Mark Twain. James McTeigue took that quote to the next level. His rebel hero was the mask, the idea he wore.

V for Vendetta released in 2005 an action thriller is meant for viewers that enjoy dystopian worlds and resistance fighters. The cast starting Hugo Weaving playing V, Academy award-winning Natalie Portman playing Evey Hammond, accompanied by John Hurt as Adam Sutler and Stephen Rea as Eric Finch.

Humans are fearful species. Probably why we have lasted this long, probably why we won't last much longer. We find the male protagonist V, is a revolutionist, while the female protagonist Evey, has confined to the world and government she is placed in. In the end, we see that V's ideals did not just last because of him they were able to continue because the people began to fight back. That fear ruled them to the point where it couldn’t anymore.

The story starts with an encounter with the main characters. V acts on his revolutionary ideas calling the people for one year from now to meet on the 5th of November.  Evey is taken in by V causing a sway in her views. Evey gets her chance she breaks away from V and confines in a friend who has similar qualities to V. The viewers find that V’s motives are vengeful and somewhat reasonable. Evey is then captured, imprisoned, and tortured. Once the released she finds out that V was the one who captured her. Her imprisonment teaches her to live without fear, how to no longer be afraid of being afraid. 5th of November comes near. An encounter to succeed in his ideals causes V to take injuries that lead to his death. Evey is left to carry out his plan to spark hope in the people, to go against the government, creating anarchy. 

This film creatively expressed how revolutions can be one man but should not only be the one man. It showed that as long as there's wrongdoing there will always be someone or people who protest to it.

It was creatively showing a different way to show correct wrongs and the start of a revolution. The way that the main characters were one of many others. Fear is what causes oppression as well as causes revolution. Additionally, the choice to have the man protagonist a masked man, was inventive, since it made it easy for both characters and viewers to connect to him.

Seeing a movie like this and you think of what you don't see. How the protagonist was a murderer as well as the good guy. How the damsel ended up being the victor. How the dictator ended up being just an old man. It showed that people are all the same it's how fear affects them that makes them different. Whether you're wielding it to press others or not being affected by it. Supported by a technique of taking the figurative and literal together. The masked man was never shown so his figurative mask of the idea he fought for could be worn by everyone, making the literal movement stand on its own.

What this movie was trying to express what that once fear consumes someone it is a matter of time till they can live and embrace it. It may take the form of vengeance, vendetta, or revolution. At the core of it all, it is how it acted upon.

The meaning of all of this is the effects of society. How eventually when the government is not in the best interest of the people but for itself, there will be a negative impact. The cause and effect, that once one thing changes society will morph to conform or break it.

Our world runs on media. Their government controlled its people through its media. V took advantage of that and chose to take the medias attention, with his actions, showing the people change since the government depicted in its own way actions. We see the media and believe it. So when we see things we act on them. That is exactly what V did, he took the media and used it to his advantage. People in the world do the same thing.

Entertainment media with characters that are anarchists as well as share similar elements: Netflix Marvel's Daredevil (2015)  - Matt Murdock/Daredevil 

The Matrix (1999) - Morpheus 

The Dark Knight (2008) - Batman/Bruce Wayne

This movie showed how lies, truth, fears, and oppression all work together to make society not worth living in, but worth changing. The character V was a symbol of conflict and an idea. As long as one of those resonated with the viewer the movie did its job.