We live in an age where digital has made photography easier and more accessible than ever. There is virtually no limit on the number of photos we can take. We can instantly see our photo, and know if it needs to be retaken. Even phones can take decent photographs at this point. So, if we're at the point where anyone can pick up a phone and press a button to take a photo, why do some people's photos just look so much better than others? Why can someone using a phone get a much better shot than someone with a DSLR that cost thousands of dollars? Basically, it's because the operator is much more important than the gear he or she is using. That is great news, if you think about it. It means that you can drastically improve your pictures without spending a dime. Here are 12 free things you can do to take better pictures:
#12 Understand Light - The word photography literally means 'painting with light.' You must pay attention to what the light is doing. If it's a bright, sunny day, you will have very harsh light and shadow, which is the least ideal scenario for taking attractive photos. If it's an overcast day, the clouds will soften the light, which makes for better photos of just about everything. And, of course, take all the photos you can during "Golden Hour" - that time within 30 minutes of sunrise and sunset where everything is painted with a very flattering, almost magical light.
#11 Use The Rule Of Thirds - Imagine a grid of 9 boxes (like Tic-Tac-Toe) over the image you're about to take. (Most cameras have this overlay now, so you may not have to imagine it!) Most of the time, placing the subject of your photo roughly at one of the four intersections of those lines will result in a more dynamic, appealing photo. Placing the subject dead center is usually dead boring. Another aspect of this rule applies to the horizon. If the sky is more interesting, make your photo 2/3 sky and 1/3 land. If the land is more interesting, make your photo 2/3 land and 1/3 sky. Placing the horizon right in the center does not usually produce a very interesting image.
#10 Learn To Do Basic Post-Processing - It doesn't matter whether you use an app on your phone, tablet, PC, or a even a free website. If the only image you can produce is the one straight out of your camera, you're going to have inferior photos. You need to be able to perform basic functions like cropping, adjusting brightness, contrast, sharpness, etc if you want your images to look pleasing. There is no shame in editing a photo...the pros do it constantly. That said, don't go overboard and make everything look massively overdone (unless that's your artistic style.)
#9 Use Foreground To Create Interest And Depth - Placing something in the foreground of a photograph can help draw a viewer into the image. It's the way we see every day...look around right now. You will see things close, medium distance, and far away from you. It's the same way with photos...if they have foreground, mid-ground, and background, our brains instinctively understand the depth and we like the image more than if it was 'flat.' Just make sure that what you choose to put in the foreground is not going to distract from the subject.
#8 Find Photos You Love, Write Down Why, And Include Those Things In Your Photos - Here is an exercise for you. Go to www.500px.com and start flipping through the photos there. When you come to a photo you LOVE (which is easy to find over there) I want you to write down on a piece of paper what you love about that photo. Is it the light? The subject? The color? Is the background blurred or sharp? What draws you to it? Do this for 10 or 20 photos, and you will start to see patterns emerge about what makes a good photo to you. Maybe you'll discover that you love black and white, or landscapes, or pictures with lots of saturated color in them. Whatever those things are, you'll be able to focus on the elements that you like and include them in your own photos.
#7 Shoot Horizontally For Impact - Check out your face in the mirror. You'll notice that your eyes are aligned horizontally. Check out your TV screen and computer monitor. They are also arranged horizontally. Why? Because it's the way we naturally see. Let's be realistic here...99% or more of your photos are going to end up on the web or on your PC. Therefore, it makes sense to shoot your photos in a way that is going to fill up the screen as much as possible, and that means shooting horizontally. (If you're shooting with the intent of doing a magazine cover or printing out a poster, go ahead and shoot vertically.) Vertical images displayed on our horizontal devices only take up a fraction of the screen, and simply lack impact in comparison.
#6 Get An Angle People Don't Usually See - Don't always go for the same eye-level shot that everyone else would take. It's amazing how much an image changes when you take the photo from 6 inches off the ground. It immediately adds foreground, and with it, more depth and interest. If you have an opportunity to safely get a higher angle, this can also be more interesting simply because it's something people don't usually see. Before you walk up to something and take a picture, ask yourself "If a 5-year kid old also took this photo, would mine look any different from his?" If the answer is no, find a better angle.
#5 Avoid Camera Shake - We've all deleted plenty of photos that were just completely blurry. Why did that happen? Well, your camera was moving slightly during the time when the shutter opened, because it's very difficult to hold a camera perfectly still in your hand. There are a number of ways to eliminate camera shake. You can hold it firmly with two hands instead of one. You can place the camera (or your hands or elbows) on something solid to reduce motion before taking the shot. You can take a deep breath in, and as you exhale, press the shutter. (This is your least-shaky period. The same technique is used by snipers to hold their rifles still for accuracy.) You can buy an inexpensive tripod or monopod to hold your camera steady. You can use a remote shutter release or the camera's self-timer to avoid shaking the camera by pressing the button directly. All of these things will help you get sharper photos more consistently.
#4 Eliminate Distractions From Your Subject - Have you ever thought to yourself "Gee, that's a nice photo, but it's too bad she has a car growing out of the side of her head?" Be aware of things in your image that take attention away from your subject, and reposition yourself (get a lower angle, get a higher angle, move left, move right) until they're gone. Also be aware of unwelcome things creeping into the edges of your image such as tree branches, ugly signs, power lines, etc, and move yourself around until you get a clean composition where the subject is the star. If you cannot completely eliminate distracting elements, minimize them. You may be able to eliminate them in post-processing with a crop, or more advanced technique. If you have a camera with an adjustable aperture, take the aperture as low as it will go to create bokeh (nice background blur) that will eliminate background problems naturally.
#3 Maximize File Quality - If your camera shoots RAW format, use it. The files are larger, but they are like digital negatives...you can go back and process the file differently as many times as you want to without destroying the original. If your camera is shooting JPEG, it has already thrown away ~80% of the original information before you even get a look at the photo. This results in more artifacts, and much less flexibility with post-processing, particularly when correcting exposure or white balance. If your camera only shoots JPEG, make sure it is set to record the highest quality possible (often called 'Fine') to minimize compression, and use the highest resolution possible as well.
#2 Learn From Others - You'll improve faster and with fewer headaches by learning from other people who are knowledgeable about photography than by your own trial and error. I highly recommend watching some episodes of The Grid, in particular their blind photo critiques like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NwJua-pDOBc#t=953 After watching a few episodes, you will have built a critical eye that will prevent you from making these mistakes in your photos that might have taken you years to learn on your own. B&H photo also has a ton of free classes with well-known professionals on its youtube channel.
#1 Select More Interesting Subjects - If you want to take more interesting photographs, stand in front of more interesting things. Pictures of extremely common objects or scenes are unlikely to evoke an emotional response from people, no matter what angle you use, no matter what the light was like, and no matter what you do in post-processing. We've all been guilty of this to some extent. An interesting subject is something that can't be taught or replaced...go find one!
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Favorite movies of 2013
#11 Monsters University - I love this franchise. It just appeals to the kid in all of us, while keeping the adult side of us entertained as well. Billy Crystal just kills it with his comedic delivery throughout. Art is my new role model. He made me belly laugh for about 10 minutes straight with one line! There are tons of this kind of movie out there, but most are not this entertaining for both kids and adults.
#10 Rush - I know nothing about (and care nothing about) Formula One racing, but this is truly a movie that anyone can enjoy. Why? Because it's not actually about the racing, but instead, about personality types. There is tons of automotive eye candy throughout too, in terms of the interesting way it was shot. I didn't have high hopes for this one, but I ended up really enjoying it, so if you feel the same way, give it a chance.
#8 The Conjuring - James Wan has released a number of somewhat creepy horror movies in the last few years, but this is by far his best and scariest. The script is solid, but the quality acting from the four key cast members really makes this suspenseful. I found the ending to be a little anticlimactic, but I don't mind a film playing against my expectations if it's done in an enjoyable way. There are a few jump scares which I'm not a big fan of, but it doesn't go completely overboard with them like so many other horror films do. A minor nitpick: there is not a single conjuring in this entire film.
#7 Gravity - As a big fan of all things astronomy and space, I had mixed feelings about this one. On one hand, I loved the scientific accuracy of an incident in space occurring in total silence. This, along with the stellar special effects, made it that much more terrifying and spectacular. Sandra Bullock did a great job. On the other hand, I found her character's somewhat forced sub-plot near the end and also George Clooney just playing 'George Clooney in space' to be inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the film, which knocks it down a few places on my list.
#6 Dark Skies - This is horror done right, except it's not traditional horror. It is the best alien abduction movie I've ever seen. J.K. Simmons only has a brief part, but his performance is what really makes this movie feel dreadfully believable. The 5.1 audio track is so unnerving that several times, I got goose bumps. The uncomfortable atmosphere and tension this movie builds is pitch-perfect. I was on the edge of my seat near the ending, and that rarely happens. Don't miss Dark Skies if you enjoy suspense and a more cerebral brand of horror.
#5 12 Years A Slave - Powerful stuff that takes you back in time to the very real horrors of the slavery era. Chiwetel Ejiofor has been one of my favorite actors for a while, and he does a fine job of carrying this film on his shoulders. The supporting cast is excellent as well, notably Michael Fassbender and Lupita Nyong'o. Everyone over the age of 10 should see this film, but because it is so realistic and disturbing, it's probably not something you're going to want to re-watch very frequently.
#4 Out of the Furnace - To be honest, this script is only average. However, the entire star-studded cast brings its A-game, and their outstanding performances elevate this into something special. Woody Harrelson really stands out, playing a role unlike anything he's ever done before. I'm glad that Christian Bale is done playing Batman so he can sink his teeth into more substantial roles like this. To its credit, this is a very ugly film, in the way it depicts absolute realism of economically depressed areas. I also found the score to be very enjoyable.
#3 Prisoners - Some of my favorite movies make you take a firm moral position when faced with a very difficult situation. Here, you are going to come down on one side or the other, and there are perfectly valid explanations for both viewpoints. This is one of the few movies where I found Jake Gyllenhaal to be enjoyable, and Hugh Jackman does a fine job as well. I would have written the ending a bit differently, but it's still pretty good. Just once, I'd like to see Maria Bello play a character that isn't broken down and sobbing because of a crisis (although she is great at it.)
#2 Dallas Buyer’s Club - Based on a true story, this is an absolutely inspiring tale, showing how a person is a capable of growing far beyond what you'd think is possible when you consider where he/she started. It's very nice to see Matthew McConaughey developing into such a great dramatic actor, after a long time of being the RomCom or slick lawyer guy. It also does a good job of showing what a corrupt organization the FDA is, and how it was in bed with big pharma even back then. (I experienced this myself when I had to import medicine for a rare medical problem because the only FDA-approved drug was completely unsafe.)
#1 Her - I love films that make you think, and I'll be thinking about this one for a long time. While it does raise some intriguing questions about the role of advancements in technology in our lives, the main focus is on human side of relationships. Her captures the essence of our emotions during a relationship in a very realistic, identifiable way. There is interesting use of color throughout the movie as well. Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson (impressively, using only her voice) knock this one out of the park. Well done, Spike Jonze. The year's best film.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Huh, this bag feels lighter...
I've noticed a disturbing trend at the supermarket over the last couple of years, and I'm wondering how many of you have seen the same thing happening with the items you buy. The price that you and I pay for food is skyrocketing, but the way this change is being implemented is moderately deceptive. Here's how they do it:
-They keep the price of the item the same
-They keep the appearance of the packaging the same
-They cut the amount of food in the package down to a fraction of what it was previously, in some cases going so far as to double the cost of each unit of food
Apparently, that's all they need to do to drastically raise the price without freaking out the consumer. They make the (correct) assumption that most people will either not notice a difference, or will notice it - but for some reason, won't be too upset about the change as long as the package looks the same and the price stays the same. What does this say about us on a psychological level? Is our perception just that bad? Do we cling to the familiar so tightly that we're satisfied as long as something looks the same?
I'm sure some of you are thinking "This is just something in Pete's head that he's manufacturing by looking at one or two obscure products." That is not the case. I have specific examples. Off the top of my head, here are some changes I've seen in the groceries I buy:
Product Price change Packaging change Old amount New amount
Tyson grilled chicken breast none none 10 pieces 6 pieces
Nature's Promise banana chips none none 12 oz 6 oz
Golden Blossom honey none none 12 oz 8 oz
Emerald Mixed nuts none none 12 oz 9 oz
Nature's Promise sesame sticks none none 12 oz 6 oz
ICBINB Buttery spray none none 12 oz 8 oz
Kraft Singles American cheese none none 24 slices 22 slices
There are more examples I've witnessed that I can't recall at this moment, but it's certainly not my imagination.
Here are some other specific examples of this phenomenon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/business/29shrink.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2008-06-11-shrinking-sizes_N.htm
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/survival-kitchen/food-price-inflation-hidden-in-packaging/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/04/u-s-companies-shrink-packages-as-food-prices-rise/
How many of you have noticed the same thing happening with the food you buy? Do you have a strategy to deal with it? Do you think I'm blowing this out of proportion? Would you be more angry if they raised the price the equivalent amount, rather than doing this change with the amount of food in the package? If so, why do you think that is? In your opinion, is this simply corporate greed, or is it a matter of finite food resources?
Practices like this make me feel that even if minimum wage is raised, people in full-time, low-paying jobs will still be struggling exactly like they are now. Even if you are working a steady job, performing well, and getting raises periodically, you may be falling even further behind as your cost of living outpaces your increase of income. I just wonder how this situation will look in 2 years...in 5 years...or in a decade. At what point will people have to turn to some other means of survival, and what will that be?
-They keep the price of the item the same
-They keep the appearance of the packaging the same
-They cut the amount of food in the package down to a fraction of what it was previously, in some cases going so far as to double the cost of each unit of food
Apparently, that's all they need to do to drastically raise the price without freaking out the consumer. They make the (correct) assumption that most people will either not notice a difference, or will notice it - but for some reason, won't be too upset about the change as long as the package looks the same and the price stays the same. What does this say about us on a psychological level? Is our perception just that bad? Do we cling to the familiar so tightly that we're satisfied as long as something looks the same?
I'm sure some of you are thinking "This is just something in Pete's head that he's manufacturing by looking at one or two obscure products." That is not the case. I have specific examples. Off the top of my head, here are some changes I've seen in the groceries I buy:
Product Price change Packaging change Old amount New amount
Tyson grilled chicken breast none none 10 pieces 6 pieces
Nature's Promise banana chips none none 12 oz 6 oz
Golden Blossom honey none none 12 oz 8 oz
Emerald Mixed nuts none none 12 oz 9 oz
Nature's Promise sesame sticks none none 12 oz 6 oz
ICBINB Buttery spray none none 12 oz 8 oz
Kraft Singles American cheese none none 24 slices 22 slices
There are more examples I've witnessed that I can't recall at this moment, but it's certainly not my imagination.
Here are some other specific examples of this phenomenon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/business/29shrink.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2008-06-11-shrinking-sizes_N.htm
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/survival-kitchen/food-price-inflation-hidden-in-packaging/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/04/u-s-companies-shrink-packages-as-food-prices-rise/
How many of you have noticed the same thing happening with the food you buy? Do you have a strategy to deal with it? Do you think I'm blowing this out of proportion? Would you be more angry if they raised the price the equivalent amount, rather than doing this change with the amount of food in the package? If so, why do you think that is? In your opinion, is this simply corporate greed, or is it a matter of finite food resources?
Practices like this make me feel that even if minimum wage is raised, people in full-time, low-paying jobs will still be struggling exactly like they are now. Even if you are working a steady job, performing well, and getting raises periodically, you may be falling even further behind as your cost of living outpaces your increase of income. I just wonder how this situation will look in 2 years...in 5 years...or in a decade. At what point will people have to turn to some other means of survival, and what will that be?
Friday, November 1, 2013
Tantalizing Tarantula Trivia!
Before I got my tiny new pet, I did tons of research in order to be a responsible and well-educated owner. Here are a few fun facts I've learned in the process:
-There are currently about 900 different known species of tarantulas, and they are as different from each other as different breeds of dogs are, having different sizes, colors, patterns, temperaments, and behavioral tendencies.
-It's a woman's world! Most male tarantulas mature after approximately 5 years, die shortly afterwards, and are only a fraction of the size of a female. Females are larger, and often live well over 20 years. The oldest recorded female lived to the age of 49.
-Tarantulas are fragile. Despite their intimidating look, tarantulas are quite delicate. Their blood (haemolymph) cannot clot, so any internal or external injury can result in the tarantula bleeding to death. A six-inch fall onto a hard surface can be fatal.
-Just like cats, tarantulas have retractable claws on the ends of their toes. Since falls are life-threatening, they need to be able to securely grip any object they climb onto.
-New World (North and South America) tarantulas are especially fuzzy. The hairs on their abdomen can be kicked into the air with the back legs to ward off predators. These itchy hairs are the main ingredient in the novelty item Itching Powder.
-The name 'tarantula' derives from the town of Taranto in Southern Italy. Ironically, the specimen initially labelled 'tarantula' was actually a wolf spider, which is a different type of spider not found in the family Theraphosidae.
-Tarantulas are nearly blind. Their eight poorly developed eyes allow them to discern day from night, but little more than that. Their primary sense is touch, which is what they use to navigate. The hairs on their legs allow them to detect tiny vibrations and fluctuations in air pressure in order to hunt insects and other small prey.
-Shedding old skin (molting) is not as simple and safe as it is for reptiles. It generally involves a long period of the tarantula lying on its back helpless, and then a week of hiding while its new exoskeleton hardens. During this time, a tarantula has no defense against predators.
-Although the venom of most tarantulas is weak (comparable to a bee sting) it contains certain proteins and peptides that may be useful to us. It shows promise as a therapy for conditions as disparate as muscular dystrophy, cardiac arrhythmias and urinary incontinence. There is also research being done on a next-generation painkiller based on the venom.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The Horror! The Horror!
There's no denying it: I watch and collect movies like crazy. It's kind of always been a fun thing for me, from the moment I could buy a VHS VCR and a 20" color TV to hook it up to. This still holds true today, and is not likely to change any time soon. As with everyone else, I enjoy certain genres of films, and usually avoid others. I was never a huge fan of horror, but until recently, I didn't really think much about why that was the case.
As it turns out, I do like horror, but the problem with the genre is that the vast majority of films categorized as such are not actually horror at all. Let's look at some basic elements of the average horror film, and analyze why they're not really part of this group:
-Horror is not loaded with jump scares. If you're watching a film that repeatedly has things jump at the camera and startle you, often accompanied by a loud noise or musical crash, it's not horror. It's just obnoxious manipulation by the filmmaker. It's someone yelling loudly in your ear. Being frightened and being startled are two very different things. I can be startled by a pan falling off the counter. It takes no talent to get that reaction from an audience. It's the cinematic equivalent of a pie in the face.
-Horror is not the use of excessive gore. The default human reaction to gore is disgust/revulsion. Remember the last time you saw a mangled dead animal on the road while driving? You just say "ugh" and look away. Disgust has little to do with fear, it's just something gross you'd rather not think about. It can be shocking if used sparingly, but shock and fear are not quite the same thing either. I can be shocked and disgusted by my phone bill, but I wouldn't call it horror.
-Horror is not the 'slasher' movie. Tons of movies are loaded with annoying-as-hell stereotype characters who get killed off one by one for your enjoyment. If you are cheering FOR the slasher to kill these people off in hilarious ways and betting on who is going to die first, it's a dark comedy.
-Horror is not 'torture porn.' This recent trend is such a waste of time that I hesitated to even bring it up. It's sort of a lame combination of the gore/slasher types as listed above, but even less effective because it's such a contrived situation that you can't suspend your disbelief. It also has all of the problems with the gore/slasher flicks already stated.
-Horror is not automatically anything and everything supernatural. Just because a film has a ghost, zombie or vampire in it does not mean it's a horror flick. Plenty of movies with supernatural elements are action movies, comedies, or terrible teenage romances. Some of the best horror movies are based on real dangers in the natural world.
Going through and eliminating films that have these characteristics pretty much eliminates 90% or more of what are considered by most to be horror movies. So, when you look at what remains, it basically boils down to this:
Horror is our fear of the unknown.
That's pretty much it. Why is that simple idea so universal and so effective? Well, as part of our survival instinct, we automatically try to identify and evaluate any immediate threats to our well-being. When we detect a threat, but can't identify (and thus evaluate) it, that seriously freaks us out. It's a primal reaction. If we don't know what it is or how to deal with it, we are in danger. Effective horror films do a few things to build around this central concept.
#1 They build and maintain a consistent tone/atmosphere. The amount of dread or suspense will normally climb as the movie goes on, but it's still the same song, just at a higher volume. The film does not flip back and forth between action, horror, and comedy segments like a jukebox on shuffle.
#2 They encourage your suspension of disbelief through the use of relatable characters. In well-written horror, you can easily put yourself in the position of one of the main characters. At the very least, they are developed in such a way that you feel like you know these people, and don't want anything bad to happen to them. You feel a sense of loss if they are hurt or killed.
#3 They let you scare yourself by delaying the reveal of the threat. It's a funny thing how the mind works; when you know something is a threat but can't tell what it is, you will insert your own worst fears into that void until you can confirm that it's something else. The moment you can see the threat, even if it is scary, you begin to subconsciously accept it and plan how to deal with it.
#4 They allow you to develop a sense of security, and then demolish it. Some films reveal the danger earlier than others with a specific purpose. Once you see the threat, you start to evaluate it and plan on how to avoid/defeat it. Before long, you (or the character you relate to) are forced into using that plan and it fails, leaving you in a panic. People tend not to have a plan B or plan C when they don't have much time to think, and the resulting chaos is frightening when survival is on the line.
#5 They use sound effectively. Of our 5 senses, the only 2 that movies really have access to are our sight and sound. Take away our sight, use some sound, and instantly you have an unknown threat (the classic 'bump in the night.') If there is a musical score, it is subtle. It adds to the atmosphere without being so overbearing that you are constantly reminded that you're watching a film.
Some of my favorite horror flicks that do some or all of these things well are:
-John Carpenter's The Thing
-Fright Night (1985 version)
-Open Water
-Pitch Black
-Paranormal Activity
-Alien
-Drag Me To Hell
-Jaws
-The Ring (American version)
So, what do you consider horror to be? What are some of your favorites? Let me know.
As it turns out, I do like horror, but the problem with the genre is that the vast majority of films categorized as such are not actually horror at all. Let's look at some basic elements of the average horror film, and analyze why they're not really part of this group:
-Horror is not loaded with jump scares. If you're watching a film that repeatedly has things jump at the camera and startle you, often accompanied by a loud noise or musical crash, it's not horror. It's just obnoxious manipulation by the filmmaker. It's someone yelling loudly in your ear. Being frightened and being startled are two very different things. I can be startled by a pan falling off the counter. It takes no talent to get that reaction from an audience. It's the cinematic equivalent of a pie in the face.
-Horror is not the use of excessive gore. The default human reaction to gore is disgust/revulsion. Remember the last time you saw a mangled dead animal on the road while driving? You just say "ugh" and look away. Disgust has little to do with fear, it's just something gross you'd rather not think about. It can be shocking if used sparingly, but shock and fear are not quite the same thing either. I can be shocked and disgusted by my phone bill, but I wouldn't call it horror.
-Horror is not the 'slasher' movie. Tons of movies are loaded with annoying-as-hell stereotype characters who get killed off one by one for your enjoyment. If you are cheering FOR the slasher to kill these people off in hilarious ways and betting on who is going to die first, it's a dark comedy.
-Horror is not 'torture porn.' This recent trend is such a waste of time that I hesitated to even bring it up. It's sort of a lame combination of the gore/slasher types as listed above, but even less effective because it's such a contrived situation that you can't suspend your disbelief. It also has all of the problems with the gore/slasher flicks already stated.
-Horror is not automatically anything and everything supernatural. Just because a film has a ghost, zombie or vampire in it does not mean it's a horror flick. Plenty of movies with supernatural elements are action movies, comedies, or terrible teenage romances. Some of the best horror movies are based on real dangers in the natural world.
Going through and eliminating films that have these characteristics pretty much eliminates 90% or more of what are considered by most to be horror movies. So, when you look at what remains, it basically boils down to this:
Horror is our fear of the unknown.
That's pretty much it. Why is that simple idea so universal and so effective? Well, as part of our survival instinct, we automatically try to identify and evaluate any immediate threats to our well-being. When we detect a threat, but can't identify (and thus evaluate) it, that seriously freaks us out. It's a primal reaction. If we don't know what it is or how to deal with it, we are in danger. Effective horror films do a few things to build around this central concept.
#1 They build and maintain a consistent tone/atmosphere. The amount of dread or suspense will normally climb as the movie goes on, but it's still the same song, just at a higher volume. The film does not flip back and forth between action, horror, and comedy segments like a jukebox on shuffle.
#2 They encourage your suspension of disbelief through the use of relatable characters. In well-written horror, you can easily put yourself in the position of one of the main characters. At the very least, they are developed in such a way that you feel like you know these people, and don't want anything bad to happen to them. You feel a sense of loss if they are hurt or killed.
#3 They let you scare yourself by delaying the reveal of the threat. It's a funny thing how the mind works; when you know something is a threat but can't tell what it is, you will insert your own worst fears into that void until you can confirm that it's something else. The moment you can see the threat, even if it is scary, you begin to subconsciously accept it and plan how to deal with it.
#4 They allow you to develop a sense of security, and then demolish it. Some films reveal the danger earlier than others with a specific purpose. Once you see the threat, you start to evaluate it and plan on how to avoid/defeat it. Before long, you (or the character you relate to) are forced into using that plan and it fails, leaving you in a panic. People tend not to have a plan B or plan C when they don't have much time to think, and the resulting chaos is frightening when survival is on the line.
#5 They use sound effectively. Of our 5 senses, the only 2 that movies really have access to are our sight and sound. Take away our sight, use some sound, and instantly you have an unknown threat (the classic 'bump in the night.') If there is a musical score, it is subtle. It adds to the atmosphere without being so overbearing that you are constantly reminded that you're watching a film.
Some of my favorite horror flicks that do some or all of these things well are:
-John Carpenter's The Thing
-Fright Night (1985 version)
-Open Water
-Pitch Black
-Paranormal Activity
-Alien
-Drag Me To Hell
-Jaws
-The Ring (American version)
So, what do you consider horror to be? What are some of your favorites? Let me know.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Steven Seagal Saturday!
For the past few days, I have been planning for this glorious experience. The plan: wake up early, watch 9 of Steven Seagal's best films consecutively, and share my reactions to each. I know that some of you have questions. I will try to explain what may appear on the surface to be a decision of utter madness.
Q: Why on earth would you do this?
A: For two reasons. First, I am still recovering from back surgery and I literally have nothing better to do with my time. Second, I own the Under Siege movies, and I'm curious how some of his other films compare. Perhaps I can find some more movies I like, or suffer through some bad ones and save my readers from the unpleasantness of ever viewing them.
Q: No, I mean, why Steven freaking Seagal?
A: Oh. OK. While today, Steven is considered by many to be a fat, mean douchenozzle that nobody wants to work with, there was a time (from about 1988 to 1994) that he was a popular, badass action star. Also, of all the 80s/90s action stars out there, he is the one I am the least familiar with. I already have all of the Stallone/Arnold/Van Damme/Bruce Willis action movies that are worth having, but I had hardly seen any of Seagal's work coming into this.
Q: How did you select which 9 films to view out of dozens?
A: First, I decided that this experience must only last one day, so I limited it to 9. (If you don't like that choice, feel free to go watch 18 hours of Steven Seagal and then tell me how many more YOU want to watch in a row.) From there, I examined various top 10 Steven Seagal lists, IMDB ratings, and Rotten Tomatoes scores to pick what are widely regarded as his best 9 films.
Q: Did you take breaks?
A: Briefly. Primarily to eat, pee, and feed my pets. Seemed reasonable.
Here we go! :D
7:20 am
The poster says "This is gonna hurt." It was right. Exit Wounds starts out with a 2-minute anti-gun speech, and then makes guns look as cool as possible for the rest of the film. An offensive racial stereotype character gets way too much screen time. Overblown twists reveal plot holes big enough to accommodate a stampede of elephants. Jaw-dropping scene: Steven and DMX fight for a minute, and then stop and calmly walk inside together as if nothing had happened. Why? I don't know, but I laughed my ass off at how random it was.
Rating: 2.5/10
9:10 am
I've already forgotten the plot. Let me think...Steven plays a cop who is a former black ops CIA operative who tricks Keenan Ivory Wayans into eating Chinese deer penis (I could not possibly make this up.) Also, they shoot and punch some Russian mobsters over...something. Steven always wears his hippie outfit and beaded necklaces into a station of fully uniformed cops, which is either awesome, or so bad that it's actually good.
Rating: 2.0/10
11:05 am
This is more like it! A fun B-movie revenge fantasy. Don't misunderstand; this is not a very good film, but it's far better than the previous two, and I did have fun watching it. Kelly LeBrock is here with her very 80s clothes and hair, in case you missed Weird Science.
Funniest lines:
Villain: "You can take that to the bank!"
Steven: "I'm gonna take YOU to the bank...the blood bank!"
Rating: 6.0/10
12:55 pm
This is Seagal's first starring role in a film...and it shows. There is a 3-minute scene to begin the film which shows Steven practicing aikido in a dojo, which was pretty badass. It goes downhill after that. This is so bad that I can't even really make fun of it. Hey look, Sharon Stone plays his wife and barely speaks. I'm so bored...and that's the kiss of death for an action movie. The name "Nico" is spoken at least 200 times, which might make for a good drinking game.
Rating: 1.5/10
3:10 pm
Oh no. No, no, no. This is what happens when Steven gets full control over every aspect of a film. Cringe-worthy dialogue, almost no martial arts action, and far too much melodrama about a fictional oil company ruining Alaska. How on earth did they get Michael Caine to be in this train wreck? He can't save it, but brings the rating up a full point. Charles Barkley would say that this movie was, and I quote, "turrible."
Rating: 2.0/10
5:30 pm
YES! This is my reward for suffering through some awful movies earlier. It may be a Die-Hard rip-off, but you know what? If you're going to rip off something, I say you should #1 Pick something good to steal from and #2 Do it well. Under Siege succeeds at both. Casey Ryback is the role Steven will always be remembered for. Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey help make this entertaining as hell.
Rating: 7.5/10
7:20 pm
As silly as this movie is, it's still an enjoyable B-movie, primarily due to the other cast members and higher-than-usual budget because of the success of the first film. Plus, you have a bit of established respect for the Ryback character (assuming that you saw Under Siege) and that helps. The movie starts out very well, and then gets more goofy and campy as it goes along, which is a little disappointing. A fun guilty pleasure.
Rating: 6.5/10
9:30 pm
This is a middle-tier Seagal flick. He plays a cop who chases a rampaging, homicidal William Forsythe, and beats up his whole neighborhood in the process for no good reason. Steven is a raging, abusive asshole the entire movie. Man, Gina Gershon looked good in 1988. How the hell did they get Julianna Margulies for this? Steven busts out a ridiculous Brooklyn accent, much to my amusement. The film ends with a puppy peeing on a guy's face. (Again, I am not making this up. Check, if you like.) I would classify this one as a comedy with loads of profanity and some violence.
Rating: 4.0/10
11:20 pm
Danny Trejo? Keith David? Kevin Dunn? Dr. Silverman from the Terminator movies? Not a bad supporting cast, really. Finally, a single film that fulfills my need for black candles, bright green contact lenses, chicken sacrifice, and cool Jamaican accents in one tidy package! There is more arm-snapping in this film than any other, if you dig that.
Funniest lines:
"What happened?"
"One thought he was invincible. The other thought he could fly. They were both wrong."
The bad guys feel more menacing here than in most of the other movies, and the setting is more memorable as well. Marked For Death is slightly above average.
Rating: 5.5/10
Final Thoughts:
-Probably the most surprising thing about today's gauntlet of films has been the long list of celebrities, some of them very big stars, that agreed to be in them. Names like Michael Caine, Tommy Lee Jones, Julianna Margulies, Keith David, Sharon Stone and so forth. Weird, but impressive that all of these people thought he was worth being in films with at one time.
-According to IMDB, Steven Seagal has acted in 42 films. What that means is that after seeing what are generally considered to be his top 9 films, I'd recommend watching these:
-Under Siege
-Under Siege 2
-Hard To Kill
-Marked For Death
...maybe watching Out For Justice if you really enjoyed those four movies...
...and skipping the other 37 entirely.
Will I ever watch the rest of Steven Seagal's mostly straight-to-DVD catalog of films? No, thank you. I'd rather have my arms snapped. Sorry, Steven.
Thanks for playing guitar though, and for making that awesome face!
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Favorite movies of 2012
#11 The Sessions
Not everyone will like this one, due to the subject matter. I thought it was great to directly tackle such an unusual topic that people usually avoid like this. John Hawkes really sacrificed his body to play this role, and gave a great performance as well. I loved the casting of Helen Hunt. She was perfect for that warm character.
#10 Life of Pi
If the beginning and end of the movie had been left on the editing room floor, this one would probably be a few spots higher. Fortunately, the majority of the movie is quite enjoyable (and totally surreal.) It's also the most visually beautiful movie since Avatar. Worth it for the visuals alone, honestly.
#9 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
While it's not quite on the same level as the LOTR movies, it's not a mediocre cash grab either. There were some fantastic moments in it that made the slow beginning worth sitting through. I get the feeling that I can't really evaluate this one fully until the other movies come out and I can see how the complete narrative plays out.
#8 The Grey
I have a soft spot for survival movies such as The Edge and Cast Away, so this one was an easy pick. I enjoyed the gradual reveal of what happened to the lead character before the timeline of the film starts. Dark, bleak and violent...if that's not your cup of tea, skip it.
#7 Ruby Sparks
The premise here is supernatural, but it's not the main attraction. What makes this film ring so true is that everyone can identify with the relationship issues and ethics that this film thrusts under a microscope. The gulf between what we want/hope for and reality is always present. How do we cope with it? Do we really want what we think we want?
#6 007 Skyfall
After the dreadful Quantum of Solace, the Bond franchise gets back on track with Skyfall. Javier Bardem steals every scene he is in, and makes a worthy adversary for James. This is not one of the movies filled with gadgets, one-liners, and sex. It's a more raw entry for the series, where the characters are at the forefront and the laser-shooting cars are in storage.
#5 The Avengers
There are really no surprises here. It's just simple superhero fun, good action, and snappy dialogue. This might have been higher on my list if the baddies had felt more menacing and credible. It didn't feel like the Avengers had to try very hard to oppose them. Overall though, quite enjoyable. Good job, Joss Whedon!
#4 Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino once again shows that he is a master when it comes to well-written, interesting dialogue. This movie has a simple plot, but it draws you in and you become emotionally invested in the characters. The racial stuff is intense, but it was probably intense in the 1860s (the film's setting) too. I admire QT for unapologetically making the movies he wants to make in an age when most directors are constantly worried about possibly offending anyone.
#3 Flight
The opening flight sequence is both suspenseful and terrifying (easily the best since Cast Away.) Flight is one of the best 'flawed hero' stories I've seen in a long time. Denzel Washington does a great job with the lead role, making you question how you feel and what should happen to him.
#2 Dredd
Easily the best action movie of 2012. I loved that Karl Urban never took off his helmet, and thus had to act the entire movie with only his mouth showing (and did it very well!) This movie knocks it out of the park in all the areas that matter for an action film. Even if you've never seen any other Dredd material, you will easily have a great time with Karl and the gang. Highly recommended.
#1 Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World
The trailer (skip it) would have you believe that this is a comedy, but that's misleading. It's got some dark humor, sure, but this is ultimately a drama dealing with love, death, and how you spend your time on this earth. Steve Carrell showed me some acting range that I've never seen out of him before. Funny, sad, and touching.
Honorable mentions that did not make the top 11:
-Argo
-Zero Dark Thirty
-Cabin In The Woods
-Here Comes the Boom
-End of Watch
-Men In Black 3
-Snow White and the Huntsman
-Looper
-Ted
And now...the dishonorable mentions:
The Dark Knight Rises
Coming from a Christopher Nolan fan, he totally dropped the ball on this film. Hey Chris! You want to know how to f**k up a Batman movie? Make it 3 hours long, and have 8 minutes of Batman. Nobody wants to watch cops trapped in a sewer for hours in a Batman movie. Nobody believes you can just punch a severe back injury and make it better either, even in a silly comic-based world. Still, the first two films were excellent, so 2/3 ain't bad.
Prometheus
I had very high hopes for this film. It was one of the few I went to see in the theater. I still can't believe what a disaster this was. The best way I can describe this movie is this: Imagine you are reading one of those Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books where the story branches depending on your choices. Now, imagine at every single choice that comes up, you pick the dumbest choice available. Repeat this for almost 3 hours, and you have Prometheus. There is so much stupid in this movie that I could write a book about it. Ridley Scott, what happened to you? You gave us Alien and Blade Runner and Gladiator... *sigh* At least it looked pretty.
Cloud Atlas
I almost always like Tom Hanks. Here, although he is helped by an all-star cast, I just could never get past the impression that this movie was very self-indulgent and pretentious. The narrative structure was exhausting and difficult to follow (Telling 6 stores at once, and skipping around every 2 minutes will be pretty jarring and annoying to most viewers.) Even worse, the ham-fisted message about reincarnation is unwelcome and certainly doesn't need 3 hours of screen time to get across. I just can't imagine most people enjoying themselves with Cloud Atlas.
Total Recall
This isn't a movie. It's a series of video game action sequences strung together. You don't feel a thing about any of the characters or particularly care what happens, because there is basically no character development. Just because we're dealing with sci-fi here doesn't mean it HAS to be stupid. An elevator that takes people through the center of the earth to get between Britain and Australia? UGH. Living in a colony on Mars is actually a lot more plausible. The original film explored Dick's themes a lot better, plus we were actually invested in Arnie's character and what was happening to him. A needless remake that falls far below the original.
So, what movies from 2012 did you like best? Which ones annoyed the crap out of you? Let me know! :)
Not everyone will like this one, due to the subject matter. I thought it was great to directly tackle such an unusual topic that people usually avoid like this. John Hawkes really sacrificed his body to play this role, and gave a great performance as well. I loved the casting of Helen Hunt. She was perfect for that warm character.
#10 Life of Pi
If the beginning and end of the movie had been left on the editing room floor, this one would probably be a few spots higher. Fortunately, the majority of the movie is quite enjoyable (and totally surreal.) It's also the most visually beautiful movie since Avatar. Worth it for the visuals alone, honestly.
#9 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
While it's not quite on the same level as the LOTR movies, it's not a mediocre cash grab either. There were some fantastic moments in it that made the slow beginning worth sitting through. I get the feeling that I can't really evaluate this one fully until the other movies come out and I can see how the complete narrative plays out.
#8 The Grey
I have a soft spot for survival movies such as The Edge and Cast Away, so this one was an easy pick. I enjoyed the gradual reveal of what happened to the lead character before the timeline of the film starts. Dark, bleak and violent...if that's not your cup of tea, skip it.
#7 Ruby Sparks
The premise here is supernatural, but it's not the main attraction. What makes this film ring so true is that everyone can identify with the relationship issues and ethics that this film thrusts under a microscope. The gulf between what we want/hope for and reality is always present. How do we cope with it? Do we really want what we think we want?
#6 007 Skyfall
After the dreadful Quantum of Solace, the Bond franchise gets back on track with Skyfall. Javier Bardem steals every scene he is in, and makes a worthy adversary for James. This is not one of the movies filled with gadgets, one-liners, and sex. It's a more raw entry for the series, where the characters are at the forefront and the laser-shooting cars are in storage.
#5 The Avengers
There are really no surprises here. It's just simple superhero fun, good action, and snappy dialogue. This might have been higher on my list if the baddies had felt more menacing and credible. It didn't feel like the Avengers had to try very hard to oppose them. Overall though, quite enjoyable. Good job, Joss Whedon!
#4 Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino once again shows that he is a master when it comes to well-written, interesting dialogue. This movie has a simple plot, but it draws you in and you become emotionally invested in the characters. The racial stuff is intense, but it was probably intense in the 1860s (the film's setting) too. I admire QT for unapologetically making the movies he wants to make in an age when most directors are constantly worried about possibly offending anyone.
#3 Flight
The opening flight sequence is both suspenseful and terrifying (easily the best since Cast Away.) Flight is one of the best 'flawed hero' stories I've seen in a long time. Denzel Washington does a great job with the lead role, making you question how you feel and what should happen to him.
#2 Dredd
Easily the best action movie of 2012. I loved that Karl Urban never took off his helmet, and thus had to act the entire movie with only his mouth showing (and did it very well!) This movie knocks it out of the park in all the areas that matter for an action film. Even if you've never seen any other Dredd material, you will easily have a great time with Karl and the gang. Highly recommended.
#1 Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World
The trailer (skip it) would have you believe that this is a comedy, but that's misleading. It's got some dark humor, sure, but this is ultimately a drama dealing with love, death, and how you spend your time on this earth. Steve Carrell showed me some acting range that I've never seen out of him before. Funny, sad, and touching.
Honorable mentions that did not make the top 11:
-Argo
-Zero Dark Thirty
-Cabin In The Woods
-Here Comes the Boom
-End of Watch
-Men In Black 3
-Snow White and the Huntsman
-Looper
-Ted
And now...the dishonorable mentions:
The Dark Knight Rises
Coming from a Christopher Nolan fan, he totally dropped the ball on this film. Hey Chris! You want to know how to f**k up a Batman movie? Make it 3 hours long, and have 8 minutes of Batman. Nobody wants to watch cops trapped in a sewer for hours in a Batman movie. Nobody believes you can just punch a severe back injury and make it better either, even in a silly comic-based world. Still, the first two films were excellent, so 2/3 ain't bad.
Prometheus
I had very high hopes for this film. It was one of the few I went to see in the theater. I still can't believe what a disaster this was. The best way I can describe this movie is this: Imagine you are reading one of those Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books where the story branches depending on your choices. Now, imagine at every single choice that comes up, you pick the dumbest choice available. Repeat this for almost 3 hours, and you have Prometheus. There is so much stupid in this movie that I could write a book about it. Ridley Scott, what happened to you? You gave us Alien and Blade Runner and Gladiator... *sigh* At least it looked pretty.
Cloud Atlas
I almost always like Tom Hanks. Here, although he is helped by an all-star cast, I just could never get past the impression that this movie was very self-indulgent and pretentious. The narrative structure was exhausting and difficult to follow (Telling 6 stores at once, and skipping around every 2 minutes will be pretty jarring and annoying to most viewers.) Even worse, the ham-fisted message about reincarnation is unwelcome and certainly doesn't need 3 hours of screen time to get across. I just can't imagine most people enjoying themselves with Cloud Atlas.
Total Recall
This isn't a movie. It's a series of video game action sequences strung together. You don't feel a thing about any of the characters or particularly care what happens, because there is basically no character development. Just because we're dealing with sci-fi here doesn't mean it HAS to be stupid. An elevator that takes people through the center of the earth to get between Britain and Australia? UGH. Living in a colony on Mars is actually a lot more plausible. The original film explored Dick's themes a lot better, plus we were actually invested in Arnie's character and what was happening to him. A needless remake that falls far below the original.
So, what movies from 2012 did you like best? Which ones annoyed the crap out of you? Let me know! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)