Pageviews past week

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Man on Fire

The first thing I noticed about this movie is the length. At two hours and twenty-five minutes I did not think I wanted to see it any time soon. Heck, for that matter I am not sure if I wanted to see it at all. It was however the last Netflix movie on my desk. I watched the other two (I have the three at a time option.) and when I woke up early this morning I changed my mind. I am glad I did. This movie was intense to say the least. First off let me sum up the plot. This tale takes place in Mexico City. In Mexico City a child is abducted once every sixty minutes. At least that is what this movie wants you to believe. Therefore a young girl in a rich influential family is a target of potential kidnappers. Dakota Fanning plays the girl in question and the man hired to protect her is John Creasy. (Denzel Washington.) John Creasy is the central character in this film here and it is he who is in almost every scene. We will not get much into a character critique here since it is the entire movie I am ready to review. This movie is so good because it is so well written. The fact that I could write a small novel on the central character proves that. It is not however what this film is about. The film has many layered elements to it. It is why the movie is so long in the first place. The film tells a whole story. That is not always so in movies today. So that is one aspect of the movie I liked. The aspect of the film I didn’t like is it tells too much of a story. I know it sound like I am contradicting myself but I am not. I just like a rudimentary story. When the story line grows too many braches you need to cut off those branches. Anybody with a large tree in his or her yard knows this. So what I’m saying is this movie needs a tree cutter. If you cut of a few of the longer braches I am willing to bet you can cut it back to less than two hours and to an 37 year old curmudgeon of a film critic like me that is the perfect length of time for a movie. Grade B+

No comments:

A note from an editor!

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for the time and effort you put into this piece, especially on a Saturday morning. I can tell you definitely took good notes of everything that was going on during the event!

We still have some work to do before this piece is ready to print. Your piece has a lot of information, but it doesn’t sound like a news article. What was the point of his speech/presentation? Why was he addressing this audience? What is Vanguard? What does the company do – who does it serve? You spend a lot of time narrating (for example, how he was injured), but did not report on the purpose of the event. You can maybe mention his appearance/joking about it in a sentence or two, but do not take several paragraphs to do so. Also, I like how you mentioned where the name “Vanguard” comes from.

There are a lot of spelling errors in this piece – make sure you proof read each sentence carefully.

I know I am getting back to you a little later I hoped, and I’m sorry about that! But if you have time tonight, please go through my suggestions and try to rework your piece. You can send me what you have tonight/tomorrow morning. Please bring a copy of it to the meeting tomorrow and we will discuss it further from there.

Once again, thanks for your hard work and promptness! Remember this is a learning process, and we are all part of the Waltonian team!

Talk to you soon!

Ten Most pathetic movie stars that still have careers.

(In A - B -C Order)

1. Hayden Christensen

2. Tom Crusie

3. Kevin Costner

4. Keeanu Reeves

5. Denise Richards

6. Adam Sandler

7. Arnold Schwarzenegger

8. William Shatner

9. Sylvester Stalloan

10. John Claude Van dahm