Reaction Research Paper FILM
I thought to myself that it would be better to find a movie with him that we both equally thought was interesting. The first few movies stopped on were movie sees like The Boy in the Striped Pajamas Remember Me , but neither of those appealed to my boyfriend and me at the same time. The first movie we could both agree on, though, was . It was newly released onto Nettling but the movie came out in 2013. Something about the plot being about viva?s left of humanity always gets to u s. To me, it sounds apocalyptic which I surprisingly like even though the thought terrifies me.
I’m even scared of zombie movies and yet I still watch them. Dealing with the nightmare sees is worth the feeling of my heart in my throat, I guess. My first impression of this movie wit hoot watching it at all, just looking at the movie cover and brief synopsis, is that it’s going to be a good movie. I’m excited, in all honesty. The star is Chris Evans, good old Captain America. Do like his acting, mind you also like eye candy when I’m watching a film. Its also a CIFS & faint sys thriller Leonard 2 which I’m really into. Less rated almost 4. Stars on Nettling which is just a genre al public rating, and I’m hoping it lives up to expectations of being a great film. After just finishing the movie, there are questions need to ask myself. Does it do what it intends to do? Will I want to see it again? Can it be used as a benchmark to co mare other films to it? Before answer those questions, I’ll take a look back at the premise. A few years into the future, global warming slips out of control, and humankind d inadvertently initiates an ice age in its attempt to correct it.
Soon after, all that remains of humanity are the passengers of an ultracentrifuge, slaughtering try that Suggests Nosh’s Arc as a speeding elevated bullet. Having predictably lea Rene nothing from their travails, the trains passengers quickly assume the flawed s cal structure of the first world that’s recently ended, with the entitled haves expel ting the enraged heaven’s. (Bowen 2014) If did do what it intended to do, I’m not that impressed with the outcome. Couldn’t get attached to characters because they seemed to kill everyone off t o quickly.
Reasons why the audience should’ve been attached to said characters weren’t known until closer to the end of the movie when the running time was 126 minutes. In my opinion, that ‘s too long to make me feel bad about a death that happened within the first 40 minutes. That bee Eng said, couldn’t injure up tears when they passed, especially when their deaths happened s denuded and the protagonist lingered only for brief moments before moving on. The movie WA s about people from the back of the train moving and fighting their way to the front, which u undoubtedly happened, but the closure was extremely lacking.
Leonard 3 wanted to compare my answers and thoughts to the one person who watch De the movie with me, Michael Nordic. We didn’t discuss our opinions on the movie until the e interview I held with him about it. Started out with asking if the film did what it intended to d . “L think it did but it was hard to tell what exactly they were tying to do. ” He said and with hi s admittedly undecided answer he added, “l did laugh at parts that felt like they should’ve been serious. I didn’t feel attached to the characters, so when they died I didn’t even care a lit tale bit. Didn’t even care about important character deaths that drove the protagonist to pus h forward. ” (Nordic) Now when asking myself if would watch it again, it wouldn’t be because the movie was entertaining enough to watch a second time. Feel entertainment wise, I got w hat would get out f it the first time and the repeatability isn’t very high. Regardless Of that, been g a writer and finding inspiration where I can, I personally would watch it again to take notes of my favorite parts so that could find a way to put my own spin on it all.
Definitely not plea seed with the concept of the train altogether but it works, guess. Asking Nordic the same question he answered, “No, I wouldn’t want to see it again. It wasn’t honestly a gripping story in the first place. What I thought I would get o UT of the film wasn’t as good as what I got out of the film. ” His answer intrigued me so I went on to ask him what he expected to get out of the film. “I thought would get more action out of L” he disclosed, “because the whole plot was based around a revolution but there w as hardly a revolution at all aside from some decision making and acting on those decision ins.
I don’t see much revolution in everyone dying. ” So finally I asked if it could be used as a b encroach to compare other films to it. “No. Not unless you compare it to worse films. It’s n to a bad film, but I wouldn’t compare it to great films. ” (Nordic) Leonard 4 Our disappointment in the film does measure up to others thoughts. Although? h neither of us were fully satisfied with what we were given at the end of the movie, we did don’t hate it. Unfortunately, is a mediocre movie, at best. At times it is heavyhearted, illogical and outright sloppy.
The film is saved, however, by its imaginative conclusion which challenges audiences to critically reflect on strategies for social change. Thus, despite its flaws, Snowberries remains a revolutionary film worth watching. (Carleton 2014) In conclusion, personally agree with both Sean Cartoon’s and Michael Nordic opinion. It’s not a bad movie, I just wasn’t left absolutely impressed. There we e some beautiful shots taken and effects used that I fell in love with, but that doesn’t save it fro m the lacking closure and moments of messy execution.
