The Art of Film Making Beyond Narrative Structure (Citizen Kane)

Before we go on to the review, you might be curious where I have been since November. A few months ago, I applied to a pop culture website called CBR, which reviews comic books, movies, TV, and other media. When I sent a sample to their editors, I was told that my work wasn't good enough for them. I haven't done a blog post in months and now I'm getting back on track. This is a review and retrospective of Orson Welles cinematic landmark, Citizen Kane.

Due to our perception of the world on a day to day basis, we often look at the passage of time as linear. This results in most storytelling following a path we are comfortable with understanding. As with words on a page where we are trained to follow from the left to the right, we have a conditioning for how we expect to consume media. Books, radio, and other mediums are defined by their narrative structure and can be shackled by it, with obvious exceptions. Film, however, is not only defined by the method of its narrative. Film's ability to tell a story can be amplified, tossed away, or even made unimportant to the project with the use of many different techniques and processes. From surreal films like La Jetee, which uses mostly still photos to produce an other-worldly feel, to The Arrival of the Train, which uses the positioning of the camera to elicit a dynamic with the audience that cannot be replicated in other mediums, film is set apart and defined by more than just it's narrative structure.

In the Golden Age of Hollywood, no film has been more groundbreaking and revolutionary than Citizen Kane. Orson Welles's 1941 masterpiece helped shaped the way movies are made with its revolutionary cinematography from Gregg Toland, non linear narrative from both Welles and Herman J. Mankewiewicz, editing techniques from Robert Wise, and powerful musical score from Bernard Herrmann. But the history of the film and how these elements pioneered film making is as legendary as the film itself.

Orson Welles (1915-1985)

Citizen Kane is the first film made by Orson Welles, a child prodigy of stage production and the creator of his innovative Mercury Theater productions on radio. By October 30th 1938, he was well known for his infamous broadcast of H. G. Wells The War Of The Worlds, which reportedly horrified the audience so much, people thought there was an actual alien invasion. Shortly after the controversial broadcast, Hollywood began to see Welles as a potential film maker.

After Welles arrived at RKO Pictures, he signed a contract that allowed him to make any movie he wants to make. His original plan was to make a film adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which would have been filmed in a first-person perspective. But that was proven too difficult, so the project had to be scrapped. Of course, Heart of Darkness would later be translated into Apocalypse Now by Francis Ford Coppola in 1979.

William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951)

After the cancellation of the Heart of Darkness project, Welles teamed up with screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz to make a satirical drama about the life of Charles Foster Kane, loosely based on the legendary newspaper tycoon, William Randolph Hearst. Rather than writing a traditional narrative, Welles and Mankiewicz had written a series of interlocking flashbacks to create an enigma of Kane's last word before his death, "Rosebud." Film theorist Laura Mulvey argues, "Citizen Kane is about an enigma and the enigma is refracted through a text that creates a strong appeal in its spectator to read clues and to decipher meanings."

Gregg Toland (1904-1948)

To create the film's revolutionary and innovative style, Welles hired Gregg Toland as his cinematographer and helped pioneer more advanced techniques than any other film in Hollywood at the time. Film professor and author Robert Carringer argues that "Toland devised the means for Welles to break a number of film making conventions in order to achieve the dramatic effects he wanted." Citizen Kane's biggest technical innovation is deep focus photography, in which every frame in the film is in sharp focus.

Another innovation in the film is the use of ceilings. Most movies sets back then don't have ceilings because that's where they hid the microphones for actors to record the dialogue. The ceilings were made of muslin so it would be easy for the microphone to record the dialogue on the set. Citizen Kane also pioneered the way how low angles are achieved. In the scene when Kane talks to his friend Jedediah Leland after his political career was backfired, Welles and Tolland has put a hole on the floor to position the camera.

 Citizen Kane also employs great use of special effects techniques, including matte paintings, optical effects, and rear-screen projection. Matte paintings were often created because building elaborate sets often cost too much money and to give another addition to reality to a scene. One such example is Kane's political rally as he tries to run for governor while also having an affair with Susan Alexander. Real footage of Kane performing his speech was filmed while matte paintings were used to establish the lack of individuality of the crowd while Kane is delivering his speech. 

Matte paintings were used for the famous opening scene of the film in which we get to see Kane's palace, Xanadu. The scene opens with a gate that contains a "NO TRESPASSING" sign and the camera pulls up so the audience can trespass into Kane's world. Through images of gates, animal shelters, a lake, and an abandoned golf course, we get to see a matte painting of Xanadu enlarging through dissolves.

 Optical effects was used for scenes that are difficult to film in deep focus. The scene which Kane fires Leland while finishing his negative review of Susan Alexander's opera performance is an example of optical effects because Kane writing the review and Leland walking to the office were filmed separately and composited together by an optical printer. Optical effects were also used for the famous shot which takes place at the disastrous opening night at Susan Alexander's opera. The live action footage was used for the opera and the two stagehands who are looking at each other because of Alexander's bad singing. Miniature shots were created for the stage equipment as the camera goes up the stagehands. These 3 elements were put together by an optical printer. 

One of the most common special effects techniques used in the Golden Age of Hollywood is rear-screen projection, which is when an actor is filmed against a screen that contains previously recorded footage. Rear-screen projection was used for the scene when Kane takes Susan Alexander to a picnic. For some reason, the pre-recorded footage has animated pterodactyls. 

Citizen Kane also pioneered the way movies are lit using light and shadow to add atmosphere and mystery. Shortly after the News on the March montage that opens the film, we cut to a screening room filled with reporters and we mostly see them in dark areas and dim lights. We barely get to see their faces and the characters were lit in darkness to turn them into silhouettes, adding atmosphere to the scene. Robert Carringer argues, "If the lighting and Kane castle the-secret-of-the-old-dark-house motif seem displacements from Gothic horror thrillers, the projection room sequence make Rosebusd sound like the 'Hey, lets put on a show' gimmick of popular musicals."

Another revolutionary area from Citizen Kane is the use of the montage. After the groundbreaking Odessa Steps montage in Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin (1925), Welles pioneered the use of the montage with the famous breakfast sequence to express the destruction of a marriage through time and space. Welles also used symbolism, such as flowers and silverware separating Kane and his first wife and the couple reading opposite newspapers, to express the troubled marriage through the course of the scene. 

In addition to all the techniques and examples in Citizen Kane mentioned above, another example of what can define film aside from it's narrative structure can be found in The Lumiere Bros Arrival of the Train (1895). Film professor Martin Loiperdinger argues, "Everybody has seen a railway rushing on the scene of a film. It seems to be coming straight at the audience. The effect is most vivid because of the dynamic power of the forward-rushing movement is enhanced by another source of dynamics that has no inherent connection with the object itself, that is, with the locomotive, but depends on the spectator, or - in other words - of the camera." The argument being made is that, while everyone has seen a rushing train, film provides an opportunity to present a perspective and an overall experience that is unable to be replicated in non-visual mediums.

Film, unlike other mediums for storytelling, or the expression of ideas, has an entire cache of tools at its disposal to help us consider the world around us and to present the things in our lives that we have a hard time placing our fingers on in a direct way. Whatever that is placing us in the perspective of an oncoming train, or using matte paintings to to show us a different perspective of the world around us, the tools that film has at its disposal ultimately defines it as a separate and unique medium.  

My 13 Film Recommendations for Halloween

It's the month of October, and since we celebrate Halloween in October 31, I figure I make a list of 13 horror/monster/sci-fi films that are worth watching and stood the test of time. This not a ranked list of the top 13 films, just a list of 13 films I recommend you see while celebrating Halloween. Here are the following films to see.

1. Halloween (1978)

John Carpenter's 1978 masterpiece centers on a serial killer who has escaped while being transferred to court and begins to stalk and murder teenagers while celebrating Halloween. This film has triggered Hollywood into making more slasher films and franchises. But what sets it apart from most slasher films is that it's very well made despite it's low budget. John Carpenter has done a great job of setting up the suspense level with his film-making and he also gives us a strong heroine at it's core, an intelligent and brave babysitter played by Jamie Lee Curtis. Halloween is a very special film.

2. Ghostbusters (1984)

I know it's more of a supernatural comedy than a horror film, but since the film has monsters, ghosts, and supernatural creatures, it has to make the list. It's about 3 New York scientists (Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, and Harold Ramis) who have been fired from the university they work in and they open up a business to catch supernatural beings. Their first customer is a cellist (Sigourney Weaver) whose apartment appears to be a gateway to another dimension. In the 80's, Hollywood has started a trend to mix comedy and horror, and Ghostbusters is one of the best. It has witty and funny dialogue, excellent comedic performances (especially Bill Murray), and dazzling, if not perfect, special effects. Because of the way it blends horror and comedy, Ghostbusters is a comedy classic (NOTE: The film might be re-reviewed if I get a chance to write about the summer movies of 1984).

3. The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1920)

Let's give Hollywood a break and dive right in to the world of German Expressionism. Robert Wiene's landmark 1920 silent film tells the story of a hypnosis to controls people to commit murders. The film's visual style consists of warped buildings, lights, and shadows. They have a sort of haunting, bizarre yet charming quality that it reminds me of the stop-motion animation in The Nightmare Before Christmas (which I will cover later). The film is also a smart statement on authority, and insanity and it's also very scary. For people who are interested in horror films or film history in general, this movie deserves to be seen. 

4. Gremlins (1984)

Here's another horror film from the 80's that mixes horror with comedy. This time, it pays tribute to monster movies of the 1950's while telling us an E. T.-esqe fairy tale. A young man receives a small furry creature as a Christmas present from his father. The boy and the friendly creature get along great but there are 3 rules of taking care of it. He can't expose it to bright lights, he can't pour water on it, and he can't feed it after midnight. All of these 3 rules are broken and all hell breaks loose. The film has a tonally consistent balance between scares and laughs, and the special effects work on the monsters is very well done. This is Joe Dante's best work (NOTE: This film will also be re-reviewed if I get the chance to talk about the summer movies of 1984).

5. Evil Dead 2 (1987)

After the surprise cult following of Evil Dead, director Sam Rami once again teams up with Bruce Campbell to create a sequel. I've enjoyed other films in the Evil Dead series but Evil Dead 2 is my favorite in the series. Like Gremlins and Ghostbusters, Evil Dead 2 has found the right balance between horror and comedy. This film has everything, lots of gory violence, slapstick comedy, and eye-popping special effects. This film succeeds on all of these levels and gets better at repeated viewing.

6. Jaws (1975)

I already reviewed the film for my first entry on my review series on my favorite movies and I like to review the movie again as one of my horror film recommendations. You probably know the story by now, 3 characters from an East Coast fishing town are set on a journey to hunt and kill a Great White Shark before it eats more swimmers. The film became such a success that it, along with Star Wars, has triggered Hollywood into creating more summer blockbusters and has turned director Steven Spielberg into a household name. What really makes Jaws stand the test of time is the level of suspense, and the 3 main characters. The 3 main actors do a terrific job with their performances and Spielberg has made the right choices as a storyteller by not giving out the shark right away. Jaws receives a high recommendation from me!

7. The Shining (1980)

Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's book stars Jack Nicholson as a struggling writer who takes his family to The Overlook Hotel in Colorado. Little do they know that the hotel is actually haunted and Nicholson slowly goes mad and attacks his family. While unfaithful to the book, the film delivers thrills with it's ambiguous images and ideas. This film makes you think when you watch the film. Jack Nicholson also gives one of the best performances in his career as the psychotic writer. The Shining is one of Stanley Kubrick's finest achievements as a director despite it's changes to the book (NOTE: This film was already covered in my summer movies of 1980 article).

8. Dracula (1931)

While not the first film adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel (that credit belongs to F. W. Murnau's 1922 film Nosferatu), this is the first and best Hollywood adaptation of the Dracula legend. Actually the film owes more to the 1924 stage play than it does with the book. The movie works or 2 reasons, Bela Lugosi's performance, and director Tod Browning's atmospheric visual style. Lugosi brings a lot of joy and charm to his performance and Browning has created a visually unique and interesting world filled with light, shadows, mist, and fog. This is one of the best adaptations of Dracula!

9. The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

When Tim Burton was a Disney animator back in the early 80's, he wrote a poem that blends Christmas and Halloween after making his 1982 short film, Vincent. Burton was fired from Disney in 1984 but that did not stop him from becoming a successful Hollywood director with hits like Pee Wee's Big Adventure (1985), Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989), and Edward Scissorhands (1990). After gaining Hollywood fame for these 4 films, Burton was finally able to bring his vision to life (though he didn't direct the film because he was busy with Batman Returns, so he hired his friend Henry Selick to direct the film). The film was created using stop-motion animation, which is a painstaking animation process when an animator shoots inanimate models one image at a time. While not a perfect film, it's worth watching thanks to it's visually striking stop-motion animation and entertaining musical numbers.

10. King Kong (1933)

Speaking of movies using stop-motion animation, King Kong is one of the major cinematic in film history for it's groundbreaking special effects, innovative sound design, and for it's entertaining story of beauty and beast. The film later influenced filmmakers like Ray Harryhausen and Peter Jackson (who later made a remake in 2005), and it's easy to see why. Nowadays it's easy to figure out that today's special effects were done by computers. But back in 1933, you had to imagine for yourself because nobody knew how the effects were done but now people do thanks to the various sources of information we have today. It works as an adventure film, it works as a love story, and it works as a special effects extravaganza. This is Hollywood filmmaking at it's best!

11. The Exorcist (1973)

Based on William Peter Blatty's controversial 1971 novel of the same name, the film follows the story of a Hollywood actress living with her 12-year-old daughter while working on a movie in Washington D.C. But after the little girl plays with a wee-gee board, she get possessed by an ancient demon who may very well be the devil. Feeling desperate for help, the poor mother hires 2 Catholic priests to exorcise her or she'll perish. In addition of being a well-made and well-acted horror film, it's also very intelligent in the way the film deals with the conflict between good and evil rather than pander to the youth market with cheap shocks. A true horror classic! 

12. Young Frankenstein (1974)

Long before these stupid Scary Movie spoofs satirized films like Scream, The Ring, Saw, and The Grudge, Mel Brooks has made a very funny parody of the classic Universal Monster films of the 1930's and 1940's with his witty take on Frankenstein. Unlike today's movie parodies, which do nothing but emphasize on gross out humor and cheap pop culture references, this movie gives us some genuine laughs while also paying tribute to the films it's satirizing instead of putting them down, like the great Airplane did to 1970's disaster films. This is a very funny and passionate comedy!

13. Shaun of the Dead (2004)

Like Young Frankenstein, this 2004 British horror comedy satirizes the genre of zombie movies while also paying tribute to them. This time the movie spoofs the late George Romero's Living Dead series and kick started the very funny series of British parodies directed by Edgar Wright and starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. In addition of being a very funny zombie spoof, it's also very well made with Wright's trademark editing style.  Another fine mix of horror and comedy!

That's all for my 13 movies to recommend for Halloween and next year I might recommend 13 more films for Halloween.

The Patriot (Braveheart in Revolutionary War mode)

WARNING: This article may contain spoilers.

Five years after the success of Braveheart, Mel Gibson once again is cast in another historical epic, this time set in the Revolutionary War and directed by Roland Emmerich, known for Stargate, Independence Day, and that terrible 1998 version of Godzilla. This film is a heavily fictionalized account of The American War for Independence, with it's pro-American propaganda and the exaggerated evil of the British. Is the film worth watching despite it's historical inaccuracies, or are Mel Gibson and the filmmakers repeating the success of Braveheart? Let's examine the case of The Patriot. For my research, I used more than Wikipedia, I watched Youtube videos and read articles.

Deja Vu?

The movie opens in 1776 South Carolina, when widowed war veteran Benjamin Martin and his children were visiting Charlestown to vote for the support of the Continental Army.  As a veteran of the French and Indian War and a widowed father, he is reluctant to go to war against British. But his oldest son Gabriel has joined the Continental Army without his permission. After Gabriel was wounded in battle, the British, led by Colonel William Tavington, has taken the family hostage, arrests Gabriel so they can execute him for being a spy, destroyed his home, and has murdered one of the children for trying to free Gabriel. After freeing Gabriel, Benjamin decides to form a militia against the British.

If this sounds familiar, that's because this movie pretty much recycles the same plot from Braveheart, the common family man who wants peace in his life but hell broke loose when an empire destroys his life and he decides to go to war. Rather than making fresh insights into The Revolutionary War, the screenplay from Saving Private Ryan writer Robert Rodat relies on traditional Hollywood cliches you have seen so many times before.

The Real Benjamin Martin

The character of Benjamin Martin is a composite character of Revolutionary War veterans, such as Daniel Morgan, and Andrew Pickens. But the figure I'm most familiar with is Francis Marion, known by his nickname as "Swamp Fox". The family depicts Benjamin Martin as a genuine family man who loves his children and gets along with the film's black characters. Unfortunately, Francis Marion is nothing like Benjamin Martin. While a pioneer in modern guerrilla warfare, he was also a slave owner, a serial killer to Native Americans, and he has raped his female slaves. Francis Marion is a completely different character than the squeaky clean Benjamin Martin.

The Exaggerated Evil of the British

While the British weren't saints during The American War for Independence, they are far from the bloodthirsty monsters as depicted in the film. The film has a clear cut good vs evil story in which the Americans were pure while the British are mindless, thoughtless murderers. Even if they are not killing people, the film uses the old snobby Brit stereotype in some scenes. The most controversial scene in the film is when the British lock up a group of innocent American civilians into a church and they burned it. Not only is there no written record that the British has burned a church filled with innocent people during the Revolutionary War, but the attack was actually taken from a Nazi massacre that was committed in 1944. In the actual incident, the Nazis has rounded up French villagers into a church and and were blown to bits. If this movie wants the British to be the villains, than they should have depict the atrocities they have committed instead of recycling stuff from a different party and a totally different time period.

I didn't cover everything about the film's faithfulness to actual history but I did give you a taste of the movie's pandering pro-American propaganda. But hey, what can you expect from the creators of Independence Day? This film heavily recycles so much material from other historical epics that it's obvious that the filmmakers were only pandering to the Braveheart crowd rather than making a powerful statement about The American Revolution and the film is also biased to the opposite party. Despite some well made battle scenes and good performances, The Patriot is a run of the mill war movie.     

Braveheart (Hollywood's bastardization of Scottish history)

WARNING: This article may contain spoilers.

I shall tell you about the real William Wallace. Mel Gibson and screenwriter Randall Wallace will say I am a liar. But Hollywood movies were written by those who have hanged historical figures. Although the film was based on The First War of Scottish Independence between 1296 to 1328, all the historical events depicted in the film were completely false. That's maybe because Gibson's intention was to create a myth about 13th century Scottish rebel, William Wallace, a man who declares war against the English oppression of Scotland. Unfortunately, I can't cover everything and I apologize if I ignored anything major. I have used YouTube videos, Wikipedia pages on the film and it's historical figures, TV Tropes, and looked at lists of historically inaccurate films. Let's take a look on the many liberties this film has taken on history.

The first inaccuracy that comes to mind is actually the title. Braveheart is not the nickname of William Wallace, it was the nickname of the Scottish king Robert the Bruce. But this is only the beginning of the film's countless inaccuracies.

England's occupation of Scotland

The movie has already started and already the film did not to it's research. It starts off at 1280 and after the King of Scotland has died without male heirs, Edward I of England has taken over Scotland and claimed the throne himself. There is so much wrong, I don't know where to begin. For starters, King Alexander III of Scotland has died in 1286, not 1280. This led to Scotland's political turmoil over the crown and throne until Edward I's invasion in 1296.

I also like to point out that Edward never granted prima noctis, meaning he never let his nobles use peasant brides as sex objects on their first night as married women. There is no written evidence that prima noctis even happened at all.

Who is William Wallace?

Apart from his military campaign and his execution in 1305, very little evidence of the real William Wallace has survived, so no one knows who he really is. Much of the film's information on William Wallace was inspired by a poem written in the 15th century by Blind Harry. Much like the movie, Blind Harry's poem was meant to mythologize Wallace and his protest against the English occupation. Combine Blind Harry's poem and Randall Wallace's screenplay, you have a William Wallace who is depicted a Moses figure for the Scottish.

As the movie opens, William Wallace was a peasant who was motivated by the murders of his father, brother, and wife to lead Scotland to freedom from England. In real life, he was actually a son of a minor noble and there's no written records that suggest that his family was murdered, nor is there written evidence that he was married. I also like to point out that in real life Wallace never fell in love with Princess Isabella of France nor did they ever met each other like they did in the movie. If they did, then William Wallace would be considered a creepy pedophile because Isabella was actually about 10 years old when he was executed in 1305. 

        

 The Real Longshanks (aka Edward I of England)

The movie portrays Edward I as a heartless, cruel, homophobic, and tyrannical monster. While the real Longshanks was a brutal conquer at best and an Anti-Semite at worst (he expelled the Jews in 1290 and yes that did happen), he was far from the royal ugly dude as depicted in this film (Yes dudes, that's a Bill and Ted reference). Some believed that he was England's best kings due to his revamping England's legal system and, as mentioned before, he never had his nobles be sexual predators by law (aka prima noctis). He also never threw his son's gay boyfriend out of a window after he heard news of Wallace's invasion of England.

The movie also claims that Edward was pagan while in reality he was a Christian (like most people in Medieval Europe). And the real reason why Longshanks invaded Scotland in the first place was because he was asked by the nobles to mediate during Scotland's crisis over the crown and throne. He agreed but on the condition that Scotland should be on England's authority and that's how the war started.

Wallace's Battles Against England

While the iconic battle sequences were well made, there are more inaccuracies. For starters, the Scottish never wore kilts in the 13th century. Kilts wouldn't be invented until the late 16th century. The Scottish also didn't wear war paint in the 13th century either because the last time they did that was back in the ancient Roman times and were identified as Picts.

William Wallace's most victorious battle was The Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297. In real life, the battle took place on a bridge and was used to ambush English troops. In the movie, it took place in an open field and the battlefield wasn't even called Stirling Bridge, just Stirling. There is actually a behind the scenes story for this. From what I've read, they were going to film the bridge but they changed the location to a field for budgetary reasons.

After Wallace was knighted for his victory at Stirling, he decides to invade England and attacks the city of York. While the real Wallace has invaded England, he never attacked York, nor did he decapitate the Duke (who turns out to be the Longshanks' nephew) and sent it as a gift to Longshanks. After the attack at York, the English and the Scots fought at Falkirk in 1298. During the battle, Scottish nobles, including Robert the Bruce betrayed Wallace and the Scots lost. In real life, Robert the Bruce never betrayed Wallace. He's known for switching sides but he never did that to Wallace.

The Execution of William Wallace

The actual execution of William Wallace was far more gruesome as depicted in the film and that's 9 years before Mel Gibson directed The Passion of the Christ. I might warn you that this section of this article is not suitable for the squeamish and for the people who are eating. Your discretion is advised. In real life, Wallace was stripped naked and dragged by horse, was castrated, disemboweled, hanged, his entrails were burned, and was finally dismembered. His head was piked in London bridge. The movie ignores much of the graphic details probably because the movie won't get an NC-17 rating from the MPAA.

In conclusion, while I still enjoy the movie for it's entertainment value, I can acknowledge and accept that Braveheart is a false depiction of Scottish history. If you wanna learn about the real history of Scotland and William Wallace, it's best to use other sources on the subject instead of Hollywood movies, which were meant for entertainment rather than telling what really happened.

Siskel and Ebert tribute

Prior to websites Rotten Tomatoes and Internet review shows like The Angry Video Game Nerd and The Nostalgia Critic, we have the 2 legendary film critics, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert. They were an influence on how we view and judge movies today and left a lasting legacy in the history of both film and media criticism. But why were they so influential and how were they remembered so fondly? Let's take a look, but here's a small history lesson behind the show.

It all started when both critics began working for competing Chicago newspapers in the late 1960's. They were rivals back then. Throughout their early careers as film critics, a local PBS station in Chicago, WTTW, saw potential in making a movie review show and the duo teamed up in late 1975, when their first showed aired. It was called Opening Soon at a Theater Near You. The show was so successful in Chicago that PBS decided to air the show nationwide a few years later. The show was later re-titled Sneak Previews. After contractual issues with PBS, they moved to syndicated television in 1982 and the show was re-named At The Movies. This was when they created their signature "thumps up/thumbs down" ratings because they have previously have rated movies with either "Yes" or "No" during their time on PBS. In 1986, they moved to Buena Vista Television and was later renamed from Siskel and Ebert and The Movies to Siskel and Ebert. It was their broadcasting home ever since.

The duo was known for heated discussions for the movies they have reviewed. Every time when they disagree about a movies, viewers were in for a real treat when they quarrel. Among their disagreements were Apocalypse Now (1979), Full Metal Jacket (1987), Benji The Hunted (1987), Lambada (1990), and Cop And A Half (1993). But they don't always argue. In fact they agree more often than they disagree. They agree on movies that are clearly good or clearly bad in their opinions. Even if you don't always agree with them, they are still interesting to listen to.

But more importantly, they don't just review then-recent Hollywood films, but they also review foreign films, independent and art films, documentaries, sometimes made for TV films, and re-releases on classic films either in theaters or on video. And they also covered important issues about the movies either in special segments or in special episodes. They did an episode on their attack on colorization, the controversial process to turning classic black and white films into color films. They have done episodes and actors and directors and often analyse their talents and contributions to the cinema. They have done episodes discussing trends and genres such as science fiction films, classic silent films, the home video market, or teenage sex comedies. They were among the first reviewers to review movies on Laserdisc and DVD and demonstrated their special features like audio commentaries, superior picture and sound to VHS, wide screen transfers, deleted scenes, production stills, storyboards, and behind the scenes footage. They were among the first critics to endorse letterboxing, the process of preserving wide screen movies on video by adding black bars on the top and bottom (this was back when HDTV was in it's infancy.)

But the biggest movie issue they have witnessed throughout their careers as critics is the the change from the auteur era of the 1970's to the blockbusters of today. Here's a history lesson that today's reviewers won't tell you. After the end of The Golden Age of Hollywood in the late 60's, the American cinema is under control by auteur directors, meaning that they are the sole author of the films. The directors back in the late 60's and early 70's has been making films they wanted to make, like Bonnie and Clyde, Easy Rider, M*A*S*H, McCabe and Mrs Miller, Mean Streets, and other films. But after the successes of Jaws and Star Wars, these 2 films has created the blockbuster era of film-making. This resulted into Hollywood's obsession with special effects, multi-million dollar marketing campaigns, and mainstream films overshadowing foreign films, art and independent films, and reissues of classic films. Hollywood's obsession with the box office still continues today. 

In 1998, Gene Siskel was diagnosed with brain tumor and went to the hospital for surgery. He did come back to the show but he had only a few months to live and finally died of complications of brain surgery in February 20, 1999. After Gene's death, Roger decided to continue the show and rounded up guest critics to seek for a permanent replacement for Gene. In 2000, he picked Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Richard Roeper. Unfortunately, tragedy struck again. Roger Ebert was diagnosed with cancer and lost his voice in 2006. After Roeper continued the show with guest critics, he decided to leave the show in 2008. The show was revamped as At the Movies, which lasted only 2 seasons. The first season was hosted by Ben Mankiewicz of Turner Classic Movies and entertainment reporter Ben Lyons. After the this season received a lot of criticism, the two Bens were replaced by Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips and The New York Times' A. O. Scott. The show was finally cancelled in August 2010.

In conclusion, I think the reason why Siskel and Ebert were remembered so fondly is because they are really passionate towards movies and deeply care about them. They don't do celebrity reports and gossip, they talk about movies and their knowledge and their love for the medium. That's why they were considered to be 2 of the best critics of all time.       

Christmas In July Special - We Wish You A Turtle Christmas (1994)

Welcome to my second Christmas in July special. Last year, we covered the infamous Power Rangers Christmas Special, now we're gonna dive further into the rabbit hole with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. But first, here's a history lesson about the Ninja Turtles franchise.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles began life as a series of comic books created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird. The comics were meant to be parodies of popular comics at the time, including Daredevil. In 1987, in an attempt to sell action figures, the comics were transformed into the popular animated series that many children grew up with back in the late 80's and early 90's. I've actually watched a few episodes and the 1990 live action movie and I actually found them entertaining in their own right. They may be juvenile and silly but they were fun to watch.

By the early 90's, interest in the Ninja Turtles were slowly declining. Kids at the time were moving on to other superhero shows like Batman The Animated Series and Power Rangers, and the sequels to the 1990 movie made less money. Yet somehow, some children's entertainment company decided to make a rushed and lazy live action direct to video Christmas special and dumped the project to video stores in late 1994 because that's somehow gonna give the Turtles a new audience. Let's see what went wrong, shall we?

The basic premise of the special is that the Turtles forgot to give their sewer rat mentor named Splinter a Christmas gift, so they they have to go Christmas shopping across New York City to find Christmas gifts and singing and dancing ensue. No crime fighting, no diabolical super villains coming with evil plans to take over the city, just terrible renditions of classic Christmas songs.

The Turtles costumes are terrible and I'm not being picky because the first two films have excellent animatronics and costumes from Jim Henson's Creature Shop. But the costumes here are just lazy. You can see gaps where the neck meets the head, and the shells wobble sometimes. The lip syncing is just as bad and the facial expressions are just plain creepy.

There's also a lot of times of the director wasn't really paying any attention. In the scene when the Turtles are recapping the Christmas gifts, one of the Turtles is holding 5 yellow yo-yos yet you can hear a voice saying 6 yo-yos.

The songs are weak. In addition of terrible renditions of classic Christmas songs, you also get songs that do nothing but pad the running time like "Gotta Get a Gift for Splinter" or "Wrap Rap." Also, aren't the Turtles secretive warriors? Why are the people in New York City not freaking out when 4 human sized turtles are walking around in plain sight?

Last but not least, the terrible voice acting. The Turtles often speak in in surfer lingo yet at one point, one of the turtles suddenly has a Jamaican during their version of Deck the Halls. As for Splinter's voice, anyone can do a better Splinter impression than this voice actor.

We Wish You A Turtle Christmas is one of the worst holiday specials that has ever walked the planet. Everything about this "special" is wrong. The poor production values, the music, the premise, the plot, even the title. It's all terrible. If you're a Ninja Turtles fan, don't even bother seeing this special and avoid it at all costs. If you're not, this will not change your mind. It shouldn't be made at all.

RATING: 0/4

Top 5 Animation Production Nightmares

You think making an animated film is easy? Think again! Here is a top 5 list of animation's biggest production nightmares. This list discusses topics such as studio interference, personality clashes, out of control budgets, health issues, and technical difficulties with the animation process.

5. Toy Story (1995)

What went wrong: Toy Story was the first animated film made entirely by computers, made Pixar into a household name, and was a landmark in both animation and the cinema. But ideas from then-Disney executive Jeffery Katzenberg almost ended production. He wanted to add more edge to the project, so director John Lasseter and his team were forced to add darker elements, such as Woody being a self-entitled jerk. When a test screening made of edited storyboards drawings was shown to Disney executives in November 1993, they were displeased because the film turned out to be a mean spirited dark comedy. Disney was close to cancelling the project but Lasseter and his team of writers begged for another chance. After Lasseter fixed the film, Disney was impressed and production was back on track.

4. Cool World (1992)

What went wrong: Ralph Bakshi's nonsensical 1992 live action/animation hybrid, Cool World was a mess from the beginning. Originally, the film was supposed to be a horror film about a woman who is half human, half cartoon, who plans revenge on her cartoonist father for abandoning her and her mother. Producer Frank Mancuso Jr, who produced some of the Friday the 13th films, was growing tired of the horror genre and hired Micheal Grais and Mark Victor to rewrite the screenplay without Bakshi's permission. When Bakshi got wind of this, he punched Mancuso in the mouth and threatened to quit but Paramount forced him to finish the job or suffer legal consequences. Kim Basinger, who plays a role that was meant for Drew Barrymore, requested the film to be toned down so she can show the film to sick children, hence why the film changed from horror to comedy. The animators weren't given a script, so they had to improvise and create random scene son their own. The final product was released on July 10, 1992 and it bombed big time.

3. Toy Story 2 (1999)

What went wrong: After the success of the first Toy Story film, Disney and Pixar decided to make a continuation of the groundbreaking classic. Unfortunately, much like the first film, it almost wasn't made. It was originally planned as a direct to video sequel, but due to it's promising story and ideas, it was upgraded to a theatrical release. The plot was redone in one weekend and the film had to be completed in nine months, which caused inherent problems. The animators suffered carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive strain injuries. The production schedule was so nightmarish, that one animator forgot to drop his child off at day care and left him at his car. Yikes!

2. Quest for Camelot (1998)

What went wrong: Back when Disney was back on track in the 90's, other Hollywood studios were trying to cash in with what they have to offer and Warner Bros. 1998 bomb Quest for Camelot proved to be an answer. The original plan for the film was to create a more mature, and dark adaptation of Vera Chapman's The King's Damosel, which could possibly be a PG-13 style animated film. Unfortunately, Warner Bros forced the animators and writers to turn the project into a Disney-esqe musical to compete with the legendary studio. The animators knew that the powers that be at WB didn't care much for animation and were not happy with the finished product.

1. Foodfight (2012)

What went wrong: Foodfight was widely considered by critics and animation fans as one of the worst animated films of all time. So it's really no surprise that the film had a very doomed history.
The movie started production in 2002, with a planned Christmas 2003 release. But before the film could see the light of day, the computer hard drives were stolen. This led to a decade of missed deadlines, animation being reworked, and distribution problems. The film was finally unleashed in 2012 and was scorned by the animation community ever since.