MYST POST #1:  WE'RE THE MILLERS

I saw this movie last week with my friend, Julie, and I can honestly say I have never laughed harder.  Just from the trailer, I expected "We're the Millers" to be just a regular comedy where I'd get in a phew laughs.  However, I was consistently dying of laughter along with the rest of the audience throughout the whole movie.  Without giving too much away, I believe a brief summary of the movie is needed.  The movie is basically about this drug dealer named David (Jason Sudeikis) who is assigned to travel down to Mexico to bring back a big drug shipment in order to please his supplier.  However, David realizes the difficulty in crossing the border undetected, and therefore hires three random people to play his wife (Jennifer Aniston) and kids in order to seem less suspicious.  The majority of the movie describes their journey and the challenges they have to overcome along the way.  

The director, Rawson Marshall Thurber, uses multiple techniques and camerawork throughout the movie.  Whenever the bad guys (drug dealers in Mexico) are in scenes, the camera is pointed upward to show the suspense and superiority of the big bad drug dealers.  Also, often during scenes where Thurber wants to show each character's emotions, he will have the camera flash from character to character very suddenly and quickly.  This way, the audience gets to see and compare the different feelings and reactions of the characters.  Thurber will use a slow motion technique during certain scenes to emphasize the comedic aspect in the scene.  Overall, I think the director did a great job filming the movie.

There is one specific scene that definitely left a memory in my head.  While on the trip, one of the "kids" is explaining how he has never kissed a girl before.  To help him out, Aniston and other kid (Emma Roberts) demonstrate how to give a good kiss.  The two are going back and forth switching off kissing the boy to give him experience in kissing.  This whole scene was hilarious on many different levels.  First off, the fact that the characters are supposed to be a family and yet are kissing each other is crazy.  Also, the director does a nice job of quickly filming the dad, David, to show is casual reaction to the whole idea.  And to top it off, at the end of the scene a girl that they met on the trip walks up appalled and witnesses the whole thing.  Everyone burst out laughing during this scene, including me. 

This movie definitely is comparable to the movie Horrible Bosses.  Not only are Jennifer Aniston and Jason Sudeikis characters in that movie as well, but the comedy and humor is very similar.  Also, Thurber directed the movie Dodgeball, which I feel can fit under the same category of comedy.  All three movies use modern jokes and references to make the audience laugh.  It isn't so much like comedies back in the day, where characters would fall off trains and get stupidly injured.  However, I think that the type of humor used in We're the Millers is more relative to the audience.  Anyone who enjoys comedies would like this movie.  I would give it 4 out of 5 stars.  This is a must-see movie, so make sure to add it to your list!

Check out this trailer if you are interested...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vsy5KzsieQ 

Review of the Reviews

A positive review of the movie, The Breakfast Club, discusses the truths of the movie and how inspiring it was (http://www.denverpost.com/movies/ci_6444463).  The tone of the review was encouraging.  The critic, Michael Booth, wrote that the movie effectively explained and elaborated on the experiences in high schools.  He commented on how right the director was in describing the typical stereotypes of high school students and how these stereotypes are present from generation to generation.  The critic referenced to the movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off since it was directed by John Hughes as well.  He mentions how Hughes actually used some of the same settings for both movies.  The structure of the review was set up with Booth summarizing the movie and then giving his overall comments about the movie.  

 

A negative review of the movie is also set up with the critics of the Variety Staff summarizing the movie and then giving opinions and an analysis of the movie itself (http://variety.com/1984/film/reviews/the-breakfast-club-1200426442/).  The tone of the review is obviously a negative one, with the critics putting down the movie and its director.  The critics were focusing mostly on the fact that a movie was written about the life of high school teenagers.  This seems rather unreasonable in the sense that many movies are about teenagers, which is good because then the audience members that are teens can easily relate to the movie.  The critics also used language such as "a rotten movie".  Overall, it is evident that the critics were not big fans of the movie, The Breakfast Club. 

When comparing both reviews, I feel that the positive review was stronger.  It provided more detail and support to back up the arguments.  The negative review kind of just gave the opinion of the movie but didn't explain why or didn't back up the argument whatsoever.  It should be a main priority for critics to support their arguments so that the readers know that it is a credible source, and so that the readers know that the critic isn't being biased.  The structure and organization of each review was similar, in that it included a general summary of the movie before critiquing it.  Also, both reviews were easy to determine the tone, whether it was praising the movie or criticizing it.

In the positive review, the Booth said, "These students have the chance to break the mold, but the ending is not naive - they may fall back into the same old rut."  I agree with this analysis of the movie because it is true that teenagers can be affected and pressured by peers.  Booth points out that even though the kids became friends that day, odds are they won't be on Monday due to the status returning to normal.  I can definitely relate to this.  In the negative review, the Variety Staff points out that "none of the group initially likes thuggish loudmouth Judd Nelson."  I agree with this because Nelson throughout the most of the movie is a bully and puts down the others.  However, by the end of the movie everyone sees him differently and understands his character more.  

I feel that the positive review would be more convincing.  Like I mentioned earlier, Booth's review provided support to his argument.  I felt that it was a more in depth review that was insightful and helpful in summarizing the key factors of the movie.  It also related the movie to Ferris Bueller's Day Off, which is helpful to a reader who maybe saw that movie and liked it a lot.  A film review needs to be persuasive and direct.  The critic needs to know what he/she is talking about and really play to the reader's emotions.  Booth's review focused on the relationship of the high school teenagers, and therefore teenagers reading the review could relate and be more likely to watch the movie.

If I was writing a review of a film, I would make sure to summarize the plot of the movie first.  A critic can't comment on a movie and have the reader understand if the critic doesn't explain the movie first.  I would also make sure to include an analysis of each important character.  I would make sure not to include any major details pertaining to the movie (such as big, surprising moments) so that the review wouldn't give anything away.  I would never want to write a review that spoiled the movie.  Lastly, my film review would describe the theme/message of the movie.  I feel that the theme is one of the most important features of a movie, and my review would be incomplete without commenting on what that theme is.