Review of my reviews (part 1)

We look back on the film observation and movie reviews so far from the first one to the current one that is being written for tomorrow. There are noticeable style points and substance given within most articles. The writer never claims to be the expert on films, just that he knows what he likes and what he feels socially acceptable or ludicrous. What is not acceptable is thinking, "That was ridiculous, do the filmmakers think we are idiots?".

Now movies are made to entertain, and part of writing about the films has been questioning the existence of being entertained while watching the feature film. Though amusing or entertaining, most movies do not bring one into the story being told with some exceptions. Writing about movies is meant to be entertaining also, not always a college course about film noir.



Dena Derakhshan spent his teen years watching movies like The Crow and Pulp Fiction to the point of knowing and reciting the movie line by line, aggravating everyone in the room trying to watch it. His early twenties were spent watching as many movies as possible after work or on the weekends, sometimes even three movies a day using a Hollywood Video unlimited pass. His mid-twenties to present have been a quest to watch every type of genre out there from chick flicks to international films to cult films and in between many bad films that still manage a profit.



The hardest part of reviewing films and giving an analysis about them is the opinion factor. Everyone has an opinion, that doesn't mean that it is the correct opinion. What we all strive for is to be correct in what we talk about and that is not always the case. There is always an observation, whether it is correct or not.



There have been a few comments on the articles written that give further insight or "internet flaming" which is unavoidable. The aspect of comments on articles being personally responded is an interesting notion since in the public eye, it must be thought out, precise and with fact to back it up. There have been numerous attempts to discredit the writing, with most not backing up the insults, but that is still a deciding issue at large.



It should go without saying but still must be said: NEVER TRUST A REVIEWER. Movies are an art form. And business. They are never about spending hundreds of thousands or millions to lose money just because it is what the producer or director artistic sense says. Go out and watch a movie because your friends or family say its good. The previews of movies are a joke. An advertisement for something a studio wants you to pay your good money for. Don't be afraid to say you don't like a movie. Half art, half business. The happy medium for the working filmmakers, but not necessarily the viewing audience.



Another moment: Dena has never said he has seen every movie or arthouse film out there. He is a watcher of movies and maybe seen more than most. Where most people watch television shows and news as entertainment, he watches movies.



His talks on the film are for the most part positive, with a small section of whether the film could be edited tighter or the suspension of disbelief is lacking in the story. The first section is almost always a brief recap of the situation given in the movie followed by initial thoughts on the actors work and the message being given. The best part of the articles is at the end of the web page there are links to either the official site of the film or the link to where to purchase the DVD, even sometimes to a review by someone else. The biggest notice is the articles started out wacky and some were long, some were barely 250 words. Now the articles seem more straightforward and not the feeling of opinion, but more of advice, which is nice. The range of movies talked about is mostly feature films, but there are a few of short films, local films, and newsworthy movie related talks. Its still too early to tell if there is a future for film writing for Dena, but its obvious he has talent. It is probably a matter of whether he will be able to keep going at the speed and consistency that he has been going because some weeks there is one or two reviews, and some there are seven or eight reviews. More than likely we will see the articles only once or twice a week after the new year, which is a shame.



So far its been a good year for going out to the movie theater with the exception of action movies. The future of film is smaller budget movies that have an important message about human beings but aren't drawn out over lengthy dialog that is deemed unusual. The biggest factor is story no matter how big the star, how much hype is advertised, or how great the special effects.

youtube.com/movies

Yes its true.
Hulu is in competition.
Videos on the web became more readily available as high speed internet connections beat out dial up service. It was around 2004 that Flash videos started taking over the web by dedicated servers streaming the video content. In 2007 companies like Netflix started teaming up with Starz Play with their streaming service, and EZtakes came around town for independent film, both streaming full length movies. The TV networks decided they wanted a piece of the pie and Hulu.com came out of nowhere to lead the pack strong.

Now back to Youtube(a San Bruno company bought out recently by Google) wanting some advertising revenue. They see Hulu making some waves and they want the entire ocean. So far, the limited video selection is not optimal to go rooting for although I usually do root for Google and its products. Give it some time and lets see what happens. Though in my opinion, if Google wants to engage more viewers to stream full length movies instead of watching little clips here and there, they need to buy out Netflix.

The selection so far is nothing to cry home about, but keep checking back and see what develops here.