Nose Diving Into 'Fahrenheit 451'

Bradbury's "Book Burner" Masterpiece On Tap

By Amir Ali Said

Fahrenheit 451 is one of those books you highly anticipate reading. In my Literary Club, we are just one week away from discussing about half of the book. I haven't even began reading Fahrenheit 451 but I'm already excited. From the little blurb that I was given in Literary Club during the first week caught my eye. Then when I came home and looked the book up on Wikipedia I was sold. After that, I noticed there was a film adaptation directed by François Truffaut and I was pulled in even more to read the book, in order to get onto the film.

Fahrenheit 451 is about an employed fireman, which in this dystopian time period translates to a person who burns books for a living. I haven't gone any further in researching what the book is all about. But that critical crux of the story was enough for me. Bradbury's brilliant idea has since made him one of the most well known authors because of Fahrenheit 451.

The idea of "book burning" is an important message for many people today. With the surging market of new technology, especially kindles and tablets, a book of this nature is extremely relevant. Although technology isn't literally burning books, it's practically making physical pages extinct. I think Fahrenheit 451 touches on a very interesting notion, book burning. Many readers have strong beliefs for the survival of books. Right now, more than ever, those readers need to be vocal. But I think Fahrenheit 451 could do all of the work for the readers who want to get there points across. I think Fahrenheit 451 is a very powerful book.

'The Omen' Edges Out 'Poltergeist' As Scariest Film

Devilish Child Worst than Terrorized Suburban Family

By AMIR ALI SAID

Between The Omen and Poltergeist there's a thin line between which is scarier. But after a day or two of debriefing from the terrifying films I must give the nod to The Omen. The reason why is because Poltergeist is much more of a spooky weird an unusual type of horror. But I certainly don't want you to underestimate the power of Poltergeist. At times, the film is equally scary with it's counterpart The Omen. But soley based on the level of scariness found in the films The Omen really leaves no room.

Usually, if managed properly, any story where there's a devilish child involved the film will be scary. The perfect case, and possibly the film at the forefront of that genre would be The Omen. The story is about an American ambassador who learns that his son is actually the seed of the Devil. Perhaps one of the spookiest elaborate tales of the background behind the whole film. The Omen shows a lot of things you wouldn't want to say. To say the least, your legs probably won't be stable throughout the whole film.

After doing a brief comparison I'm certainly excited to post reviews of both films. They are instant classics that should've been seen by now. They truly show what a good horror film feels and looks like. But what I'm really amazed about is the two angles that both films took. One had an incredible spooky, scary feel to it, and the other had more of a science fiction weird, spooky, and sometimes comedic feel to it. Both films are for different types of people. But can be accepted by all filmwatchers.

'Ratatouille'-Factor In Effect With 'Rango'

Animated Film With Serious Undertones Performs Well At Box Office

By AMIR ALI SAID

The newest mainstream animated film starring Johnny Depp, Rango has been doing well at the box office. Surprising, since the trailer didn't do much for me or anyone else I know. But after I looked at the story my mind was changed. The animated film, set in a western town where a stranded chameleon storms into town as a tough drifter named Rango. From that moment up this lost chameleon basically takes on another person's personality. But then he's offered the job of being sheriff of the time. That's when the story takes a leap, something I'm interested in seeing.

Rango seems like an interesting film. I think the idea of a western animated film is taking a chance. However, from what I've seen in the trailer the film seems clumsy. The story is there, but the execution looks poor. But the thing about that is tricky. Usually, when a story is solid, it'll drive the film no matter how poorly its directed, produced, or edited. But in this case, from what I got from the trailer, that's not the case. It looks like the film doesn't realize that it's not just a funny animated film for kids.

Rango was made on a $135 million budget. Amazing in it's own right. Since it's March 4th release, the film has made $117 million. Before the month is over the film is already on the track to success and a substantial profit. It took 11 days. That is really alarming, but in a good way. It goes to show how the mainstream animated market is still alive. But one glaring factor is that $135 million budget. The film should've made a profit a long time ago due to a smaller budget. Budget's generally shouldn't be big. Especially animated films. There's not much to manage besides maybe special effects. But there's something else about this film that I don't most people are talking about.

The situation that Rango is in is what I like to call the Ratatouille factor. A year or two ago when I saw Ratatouille I wanted to see a animated comedy. But instead what I got was a rather serious animated film. With Rango I think they'll have a lot of similarities. But Ratatouille was a good film and I just don't think Rango will be able to accomplish that. But I'm willing to give the film a shot since I want to see how it turns out at the box office.

'Toy Story 3' Challenges Original For Top Animated Film Spot

Emotional Roller Coaster Ends Well, Best "Franchise Finale" Film Yet?

By AMIR ALI SAID

The Toy Story franchise is one of my favorites. The first installment of the Toy Story series was great. That movie single-handedly shaped my interests in animated films. Every animated film that I saw had to stand up against Toy Story. But who knew that Toy Story 3 would come out and I would be forced to rethink my animated film bar? I saw Toy Story 3 and I was surprised by my reaction to the film. Here's how I felt about Toy Story 3.

Toy Story 3's storyline was incredibly good. This film gets four stars based on the storyline alone. Andy's preparing for college and he hasn't found a place for his toys yet. Woody and Buzz gather the gang together and try to instill optimism amongst all the toys. But a mistake soon gut all of the toys of any hope they still had in them. Woody and the toys wind up in a daycare where all seems to be swell, until Woody leaves because he wants to go home. Led by Buzz, the toys soon realize everything isn't as great as they thought. In fact, you'll never expect what happens next.

Editing has to be the second most important aspect and feature to Toy Story 3, if not tied for first. The editing in Toy Story 3 made the second half of the film extremely sinister. The editing was very effective and gave off the feel of many dire situations that were impossible to get out of. Then what happened? Editing was able to get the toys out of trouble. In an animated film like Toy Story 3 I didn't think editing would matter as much as it did. There was a huge impact on the film thanks to editing and I think that was important.

Another part of the film that I didn't expect to matter was lighting. I mean come on, an animated film is already lit a certain way to the point where lighting doesn't play a role in the film. But in Toy Story 3 once again I was surprised by how much it mattered. The lighting in the film made the whole feel of Toy Story 3 cold and eery. Lighting also played a role in showing the drastic differences between the toy life in Andy's room, as opposed to the life at the daycare. I thought that contrast really helped better the film.

One thing that I liked about the acting in Toy Story 3 was the character Lotso (Ned Beatty). Wow. Man was that strawberry scented hug bear beyond creepy and mean. I don't think there could've been a better voice for Lotso. If anybody else was chosen I don't think the character would've been as scary, but nice at the same time. I also thought that the Chatter Telephone (Teddy Newton) was a great character to the film that made the whole story better. The voice and actions that the Chatter Telephone committed truly impressed me on a whole nother level. Nonetheless, the new voices in Toy Story 3 added to the already great cast.

Toy Story 3 was a great film. Not only did it challenge the original Toy Story but I think that there's a tie at the top of the animation food chain. Toy Story 3 is a four star movie. This film ran through all of my expectations and had me on an emotional roller coaster. I think most people had that same reaction because this film was great. This is probably the first franchise that I've seen where the franchise is rapped up so incredibly well. Nonetheless, Toy Story 3 is a must-see, too many things went right in this film for it to be overlooked.

'Zombieland,' Horror Spoofs Done Right

Storyline, Acting and Cinematography Come Together For Solid Three Star Film

By Amir Ali Said

Since Zombieland was in the theaters last year, I wanted to see it. I had just seen Adventureland at home on the Starz channel and after the movie ended I noticed Zombieland was going to air in a couple of weeks. I decided that I'd commit that date to memory and watch it the night Zombieland premiered. To no avail. I even placed Zombieland in my instant queue and past it over numerous times. But Thursday morning, I was finally able to catch Zombieland on one of the Starz channels. Here's a breakdown of the film.

In a world full of zombies that have spread across America, four people find each other and try to survive. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) who's survived by following his thirty rules finds Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) in Columbus, Ohio. Once the two find each other they decide to head to Florida, on their way there they run into two girls, one who appears to be bitten by a zombie. However, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) aren't as helpless as they look. All in all, after a couple thefts here in there, the four realize they're all the family they've got in Zombieland.

The storyline in Zombieland is rather sad and hopeless, but the twist that this film is a comedy is funny in itself. Making fun of the whole situation is actually funny. I think if the film was a gory horror picture nothing in Zombieland would've worked. Plus, all of the actors would have to be scrapped. This film had a storyline that could only work with a lot of comedy and a hint of serious texture. I don't think anything should've been changed with the storyline, just a couple scenes could've been taken out and replaced by some more explanation of each character's background.

Editing was key in Zombieland. Not only was the film a comedy, it was also a horror film, and it had to portray such. I think Zombieland did a good job of showing this was a horror film through the editing and storyline. The editing in the film was rather quick during the zombie chasing scenes because, well, the zombies were chasing the characters. In every other scene, when the viewer was getting context on the characters, the editing was slow with a hint of hurried energy. The characters had some where to be, but they still had enough time to find out about each other, and I think that's where the editing was most effective.

Camera angles and lighting could make a case that they were just as effective as editing. Zombieland used a couple clever techniques that could only be executed by a few different camera angles. For example, whenever Columbus spoke of one of his rules, there would usually be an on screen rule that summarized everything he had to say. Most of the time he spoke of one of his rules their would be a wide shot that took up Columbus and the rule that appeared near his shoulder. I thought that was clever. Lighting was useful because most of the film was shot during the day, so I think a lot of natural light was used. The night scenes of course used lighting that was around the scene, like the very last scene.

Acting was on point. Jesse Eisenberg as Columbus was good casting. As a matter of fact, everybody was good casting from Eisenberg to the rising actresses, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin. Each one of these actors played their role and didn't try to outshine the next. Clearly, by storyline structure, Jesse Eisenberg was the star and everyone else were supporting roles. But everybody's energy meshed together to create a solid film that featured great acting, solid storyline, editing and cinematography.

After watching Zombieland I told Pop I thought the film was a solid two stars. Now, I think the film should get a boost, two and a half stars at least, because I think some aspects of the film make it three stars. Plus, I like all of the characters, and I also like the character names. Naming characters after their home city was a clever technique that worked. I think a lot can be learned from this film, especially the spoof genre. Nonetheless, with all of the aspects to the film I think it should be seen and studied.

Film Screening: 'Prom Night,' Horror At It's Best

80s Classic Flick Warrants More Exposure

By Amir Ali Said

Prom Night is a classic. Before seeing the 2008 version, I had no idea it was a remake. I had interest in seeing the earlier version with Jamie Lee Curtis. The 2008 version didn't do much justice. The film wasn't shot very well, and the storyline left room for error. Plus, at certain parts of the film I was at a lost. Oh yea, and the acting was horrible. In a horror film the characters need to have a little crumb of intelligence.

The storyline is simple, but it takes a twist most viewers will never catch. Prom Night is about a masked killer who haunts and kills four kids who are responsible for the accidental death of a child six years earlier at their senior prom. Who's the killer is the question at hand. The following question would be, what does Kim (Jamie Lee Curtis) have to do with it all? It's not for me to answer, but you to witness. This film will have you on the edge of your seat, and make sure you look out for clues to solve the twist.

Horror flicks are meant to scare you. They're meant to make you think and wonder what's the point of this film. Prom Night achieved all of those goals. Effective writing, acting, and cinematography helped the film along. It's a solid film. The fact that it was an 80s film shocked me. I thought it was early to mid 70s. Nonetheless, it didn't effect my thoughts on the film. I think Prom Night is up there with Carrie as one of my favorite horror films.

Prom Night is one of those films that I think has been overlooked. But I think the film would've benefited the film industry if it got more exposure. It certainly would've at least helped the horror genre get better. This film is certainly the definition, if not the pieces to the puzzle to a great horror film. I'd watch this film several times just to study certain aspects of the film. I think Prom Night can teach viewers about what a storyline should include. This film exceeded all of my expectations.

Four stars is just right. Prom Night earned it. This film should be seen, even though I don't think many people have watched it. Maybe a couple casual film watchers during the 80s, but I certainly don't think anybody watched this film recently. Horror isn't my thing, I'll watch it occasionally, but only films that I know. I don't like to watch horror films now because they usually feature dumb characters and bad acting. For some reason, I think great storyline and acting was lost when the horror torch was passed from the 70s and 80s, to the 90s and 2000s.

'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,' Underrated British Classic

One of the Best British Films Hasn't Gotten Much Exposure In the U.S., Plenty of Beneficial Material

By AMIR ALI SAID

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is an underrated classic. Most people in America haven't seen the film. That's evident from the $3 million box office return domestically. This 1998 British crime drama tells the story of four friends. A brilliant idea falls into the lap of one of the friends, Eddy (Nick Moran), and they act quickly on the opportunity. A card game, with a lot of big names and money involved. There's only one hefty amount that they need to get into the game, 100,000 pounds. After debate and reluctancy the group pool money together. Of course not everybody will be playing in the game, only Eddy, the card expert will partake in this event. But all goes wrong, the card game is no where near what he expected. In fact, he's out of 500,000 pounds, with three days to get it back. He also happens to own a big time gangster, Harry 'The Hatchet'. What's there left to do?

I'll tell you what. A heist is inevitable. There's no other way to get 500,000 pounds within three days legally. But here's the problem. When this card game goes wrong, so does the rest of their world. A simple heist is in the works but way more parties are involved with the whole situation than anybody expected. Guns, gusto, and pride are all up for grabs as Tom (Jason Flemyng), Soap (Dexter Fletcher), Eddy, and Bacon (Jason Statham) struggle to stay alive. But then again, these aren't regular friends, they are close and witty. Nonetheless, the storyline has multiple layers that can't be described very easily. You've just got to see the film.

Guy Ritchie did a great job of managing and executing multiple layers of the storyline. I'm in awe by how well they were able to pull it off. Keep this in mind, there were about four or five parallel stories running throughout the film. I only want to state two since I don't want to ruin the experience. But the two stories (Eddy and Company, and Harry 'the Hatchet' and his crew). If those two stories alone were tackled in the film it still would've been splendid. But then two or three others were thrown as well? That's just an outstanding effort of management and execution. Who do you thank for this great storyline? The director, Guy Ritchie. That's every impressive. But here's a look into the acting found in the film.

This film sparked two acting careers, Jason Statham, and former International footballer turned actor, Vinnie Jones. These two actors collectively pushed their lives into a new light with the roles they played in the film. Statham himself was a semi-critical character in the film. In fact, I expected Nick Moran out of the four friends to go onto a prosperous career. However, Statham is the one on went on to do that. Jones also played a semi-critical role in the film. He was seen a lot, but his actual role wasn't too apparent. However, both Statham and Jones delivered solid performances. I also noticed how the characters seemed to react naturally to their peers and the action. I wonder if an editing career was spawned off of this film, because the editing was incredible.

Editing is essential when dealing with multiple layers to a storyline. Not only does the editing have to be near perfect. But the editing also has to maneuver through each piece of the storyline easily and effectively. Both of those tasks are hard because a slow or fast cut here or there could mean jagged editing. Which would then mean an unauthentic story. The story would be unauthentic because the parallel stories would no longer feel like they're going on at the same time. Instead, you would get the feel like one thing happens, and then the next thing happens, instead of one stream lined story with multiple layers. I think the lighting and cinematography was also able to help that along.

Lighting and cinematography may not have been noticed by many. But I think this combination was at one of the highest levels I've seen. The lighting gave the film a gritty and old feeling to the film. I think the lighting gave the impression that their was a film over the camera when shooting began. But I also liked the cinematography. The best shots were found towards the end and middle of the film. I really like how the crooked card game was shot. There were multiple shots of each player's reaction and the angles seemed like you were on a merry-go-round. Towards the end the shots portrayed mostly action and quick reactions. But all in all I found the cinematography and lighting to be one of the best aspects to the film. Plus, both of them enhanced the film and the experience.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is an underrated film in America. In fact, when the film came out it only made $3 million domestically. Over the twelve years that the film has been out I still don't think many people have seen it. A $3 million box office return proves that. I'd go out on a limb and say only five hundred thousand to a million more people have seen the film since its release. Unless you study film or have an interest in Guy Ritchie or Jason Statham you wouldn't have any other reason to go out and look for the film. This isn't a film for everyone. But as far as directing, acting, editing, lighting, and cinematography goes this is one of the most exceptional films I've seen yet. There should be an incredible amount of people in the U.S. who have seen this film because I think it'll benefit many filmmakers. Needless to say, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is four stars. This is probably the best-underrated film I've seen.

Film Review: 'This Is Spinal Tap'

Parody Of Rock-Stars Had Me In Knots

By AMIR ALI SAID

In Film Review Class last week we screened This Is Spinal Tap. I saw the film when I was five years old. But its been ten years and I didn't remember much. At the time, I didn't have much appreciation for the film. In fact, I didn't even remember I saw the film until I shook up my memory a little bit. The film was funny to me then, but it was non-existent until this point. I looked forward to the next opportunity I would get to see the film. So when my teacher announced that we would be watching This Is Spinal Tap, I was ready.

This Is Spinal Tap is a mockumentary at it’s best. The film is a parody of numerous rock documentaries, and rock-bands alike. However, while watching the film you wouldn’t think for a second that this wasn’t real. You wouldn’t think that these obnoxiously dumb, yet funny, rock artists were fake. Instead, you would watch the film as if it was real and laugh along with the jokes delivered with straight faces. This Is Spinal Tap achieved a lot of things, one of which, accomplishing a successful documentary. That intended to be a mockumentary.

The whole concept of the story is ingenious. Rob Reiner, the director, and the rest of his cast, Christopher Guest, Michael Mckean, and Harry Shearer actually thought of every intricate detail of the story. The final product that they came up with was hilarious. The story was solid all around, from the names to the multiple names of the band. Then, the history of the band and each character. But above all, with many factors comes many challenges. But after seeing This Is Spinal Tap I’m not sure if I was able to see any problems. The story execution was second to none. There was a lot of story to manage and I think the film did it’s justice. But one more key component to the film is the acting.

This Is Spinal Tap couldn’t have just any actors. Eve Brandstein deserves credit as the brilliant casting director. But Christopher Guest, Michael Mckean, and Harry Shearer deserve all the props. Each one these actors delivered wonderful, funny performances in their respective roles. Especially, Christopher Guest. Guest really drove the film and his character came alive more than anybody else in the film. I was amazed at how Guest delivered some of the funniest lines in the film with such a straight poker face. But I do think that the supporting actors, and group members helped give a strong base to the film. Cinematography also gave the film it’s backbone.

The cinematography of a documentary can be very rocky and edgy. In This Is Spinal Tap I don’t think the essence of a documentary was lost at any moment. I got the grainy texture of the film that oozed this is a documentary. The cinematography really solidified the film as a hardcore rock-band documentary with funny tendencies and lines. Beyond anything else, I think the cinematography is what really made some people think the film was real. Besides working in tandem with the editing, the cinematography stood on it’s own two.

Editing played a significant role in This Is Spinal Tap as well. I think a lot of what went into the film had a lot to do with the editing and cinematography. But beyond that, the film truly deserves four stars. The documentary feel given off, the acting, cinematography, and editing make it hard to not give the film anything but four stars. Plus, it was groundbreaking and sort of controversial. Since some people thought it was real and others thought it was fake. It drew a line between documentaries and mockumentaries and changed film forever.

This is Spinal Tap is one of the funniest documentaries I’ve ever seen. The rockstars that make up Spinal Tap are some of the best musicians I’ve seen. The interviewer? He’s great as well. The crowds that fill the venues where Spinal Tap play, wonderful people. I wonder how much it costs to get into a Spinal Tap concert. I even wonder how many die hard fans the group has gotten over the years. I believe it’s time for a revamped, world-wide tour and reunion of the wonderful Spinal Tap. If only the rock-band was real.

'Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules' Beats 'Sucker Punch' At Box Office

Family Picture Will Outlast Action Film

By AMIR ALI SAID

Sucker Punch debuted at the box office swinging. But the film was out done by Diary of A Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules. Diary Of A Wimpy Kid had made $25 million at the box office. Further reassuring the reign of family films at the box office. It's counterpart Sucker Punch had made a total of $20 million at the box office. All of the totals coming in as of Monday this week have been surprising to some, and encouraging to others. I've had mixed feelings.

Knowing the quality of the first Diary Of a Wimpy Kid I knew it would be tough to defeat against any opponent. But the film up for competition was Sucker Punch. Completely different quality of film and genre. Sucker Punch is an action film along the lines of a graphic novel. Hence, Zack Snyder directs the film. There is a core group of fans and moviegoers strictly for films that take on the graphic novel adaptation. Graphic Novel vs. solid family film, almost always the family film will win.

When I saw the first Diary Of a Wimpy Kid I was impressed. I felt like the adaptation from book to screen was good. I especially liked the way the book's characters, and pictures were translated in a clever way on screen. The character's and pictures from the book came on screen as if they were scribbled on each page of a notepad and flipped through. If the box office is any indication of what the sequel entails it must be just as good. Either way, Diary Of A Wimpy Kid is a franchise with a strong book base, that has now transitioned into film. A transition that has since benefited every person involved with the project. But Sucker Punch has gotten a surge during this week.

Zack Snyder came out of the box as a director with Dawn of the Dead. The next two works he went on to direct (300 and Watchmen) went on to do wonders at the box office. Snyder's graphic novel style in his films has since caught the eye of many across the world. The anticipation for Sucker Punch however, couldn't have been lower. I think the strong, yet weak take at the box office proved that. The film looks really good, but the take at the box office and a few rumors of bad reviews seem to have hampered Snyder's attempt this time around. But I think Sucker Punch is going to do well. In the long run, I think Sucker Punch will surpass Diary Of a Wimpy Kid by a slight margin.

Film Review: 'The Maltese Falcon'

Adaption Similar Of Classic Book Is Right On

By AMIR ALI SAID

Reading a story page by page, and seeing a story on screen are two different things. Both types of storytelling offer the viewer and reader multiple options. The book offers comprehension and prolonged storytelling. While the film delivers and caters to the eye and most importantly, the mind. That being said, The Maltese Falcon as a film and a book are two opposites. But like I've noticed over the past few years, films give stories a new light. As is the case with The Maltese Falcon, the film.

Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart), the sly, cool, and collected private eye detective is met with an urgent task of finding Miss Wonderly's sister (Mary Astor). But soon, her story's true colors come to light. Bogart's performance in the film is one of the best I've ever seen. Certainly, the best performance I've seen Bogart deliver. His range of tonal dialogue, and his facial expressions along with his charisma really are one of the best. In fact, he exhibited what I imagined Sam Spade to be. But the story itself did enough for me.

A couple things here or there were missing from the film, as opposed to the book. But that's understandable, because the film couldn't take up much time. But even without certain aspects to the stories, and a couple alters, I had no faults with the decisions. In fact, the ending in the film, leaning more towards a Hollywood ending was brilliant in my eyes. The book ended on a much more subtle note, while the film ended tipping on the drama side. But what brought me in the most, was the very last frame.

Now that I've read the book and seen the film I haven't been able to decide which one I think is better. I'm not even sure which side I'd tip towards yet. But I do know that Hammett's writing style, and Bogart's great acting performance shall have one last stand off. But right now, I can't make a decision because of the superb nature of them both. That being said, the film and the book are equally important to the preservation of themselves. They are both key to many films that can come out today because I believe they should be looked at across the globe. Dashiell Hammett and John Huston did a great job.