What to think about An Inconvenient Hero On A Wire

Recently, I viewed the films: Hero, An Inconvenient Truth, and Man on Wire. Thinking back on all of the films, Hero and Man on Wire were by far the most entertaining. I felt as if I was being lectured on how terrible i am to the environment in An Inconvenient Truth. Nonetheless, each film brought its own special piece of film making to the table.

In Hero, I found the "Kung-Fu" to be quite over dramatized. Having Jet-Li starring should have been the first clue to expect fake fights. However, the color scheme played a huge role in the plot line of the film. Each time the story of the assassins was told, the color scheme was changed to match the mood of the person who was telling the story. When Jet-Li told it, the colors were reddish, invoking the inner anger of the audience. When the king told it, the colors were blue, letting us know that the mood was calm. In this sense, I appreciated the movie more than I would have if it were simply an action movie.

In all honesty, Man on Wire was nothing more than an informative entertainment piece to me. I feel as if the story was played up more than it would have been if it were simply a retelling. The recreations seem to be unrealistic, especially when the two men are sneaking in front of the cops. In this sense, I could not really stand to watch this film. It was okay from an entertainment perspective, but nothing more. (by the way, were police officers really this bad during that time? It seems way to dramatic when they go up the building.)

Finally, I will talk about the work of Al Gore's life, An Inconvenient Truth. Besides the guilt trip on Americans (he did have every right to), I found this documentary quite informative. His presentation was really good for a man who was known to put people to sleep. The graphs, pictures, and statistics paint a picture for Americans on how our ways are affecting the global climate. I can also appreciate the personal side of Gore tying into the plot of the film. Having a personal touch to a sensitive subject really helped his credibility when talking about how family members have died and so on and so forth. This documentary was actually pretty fascinating and I did enjoy this one the best out of all three.

How does the Night of the Living Dead compare to other Zombie films?

The Night of the Living Dead- the first zombocalypse movie. After watching the movie, all i can say is that it was definitely appropriate for the time period. Romero did not show the killing or mutilating of people or zombies. The version we watched had new music, so I assume that the original's was drawn back as well. The zombies in Night of the Living Dead were also different from many movies I have seen. The zombies were slow-moving, not strong, and could use simple tools. Another aspect of the film that was different was how the zombies came to be. They were simply dead people who then got radiation poisoning and became reanimated. The "zombie disease" was not spread through the bite, but a bite from a zombie could kill you. Finally, the only way to kill a zombie was to destroy its brain.

Zombieland, on the other hand, seems to differ from Night of the Living Dead quite a bit. First, there was an epidemic that caused the zombie outbreak, which spread to people if they were bitten by a zombie. On the bright side, you could kill a zombie just by murdering them like you would a human being (just don't forget the double-tap). Often times, the killing of zombies would appear to be like a game, and blood would spatter everywhere. Ruben Fleischer spared no decency in the killing of the zombies. His zombies also were rather stupid, and used no tools. However, the zombies could run and climb.

As you can also see, the zombies are definitely different in appearance. In the 60's, the cinemas were not as open as they are today.

In essence, Night of the Living Dead simply broke the zombie barrier in films. Although the quality of the zombocalypse may have dated, it opened the gates for our favorite zombie movies.