I'm not going to talk about the plot of the film; you can find that information on numerous review sites. What I want to talk about is the film's message and what it meant to me. After seeing "You will meet a tall dark stranger" I was a little reluctant to see “Midnight in Paris”, because Woody Allen has made some hit/miss films for the last several years. I was hoping to repeat the eye-opening, funny and charming experience that I had when I saw "Vicky Christina Barcelona."Even though it lacks the depth that is prevalent in his earlier work, “Midnight in Paris” is a beautifully photographed film with a strong and prominent message.
A friend of mine told me "You should see DRIVE. You will like it." I just said "Yeah?" and kept going on with my day.
I'm not big fan of Hollywood cinema; they tend to make the same film over and over again. The formula works and many enjoy it, but I want to see something different; something that will make me think.
Then another friend said, "Did you see DRIVE? It's not an action movie." Well, now I had to see it; not because it wasn't an action movie but because I was curious to see what my friends thought I would like in a movie.
People who critique moving pictures fall into 3 general classes:
1. Reviewers - are generally journalists who describe the contents and general tone of a movie, with only incidental emphasis on aesthetic evaluation.
2. Critics - are also journalists for the most part, but their emphasis is more on evaluation than on mere content description.
3. Theorists - are usually professional academics, often the authors of books on how movies can be studied on a more philosophical level.
I'm a film critic and I like to write about films that are exceptional and stand above the rest.
"The role of the critic is to help people see what is in the work, what is in it that shouldn't be, what is not in it that could be. He is a good critic if he helps people understand more about the work that they could see for themselves; he is a great critic, if by his understandings and feeling for the work, by his passion, he can excite people so that they want to experience more of the art that is there, waiting to be seized. He is not necessarily bad critic if he makes errors in judgement. He is a bad critic if he does not awaken the curiosity, enlarge the interests and understanding of his audience. The art of the critic is to transmit his knowledge of and enthusiasm for art to others." ( Pauline Kael )