[◉¯]

I love very timeless films, no matter what age am I, the lesson or emotion I got from watching it will always be unforgettable. I am a fan of 2000s movies. Whether romantic or something that is the typical coming-of-age themed. Still, I adore thought-provoking films. Any little detail, foreshadowing, metaphor, or anything, I will always find it so crucial and magnificent.

The Mummy is about explorers who woke up Imhotep, an ancient figure who was buried alive while in deep grief at the loss of his lover. Her brother Jonathan, librarian Evelyn Carnahan, and adventurer Rick O'Connell, fought against Imhotep who caused deaths and mayhem while trying to resurrect his lover through Evelyn. In the end, they defeat him and continue on their journey.

• What were scenes that stood out to you - whether good or bad and why? 

The scenes wherein the characters are in the desert caught my attention only for the beauty of the environment and how they never fail to give appreciation to it. Whether while in action or just still walking, I feel that the location emphasized the story because of its rich history and the uncertainty of its beauty at the same time.

• What were the production aspects or details that stood out to you – whether good or bad? Why?

The choice of the transitions made me curious, although I've seen some similar films with the same style. I found the editing style both conflicting and complimentary for the movie. I think the mix of a bit of humor and actual action did not translate well with the movie theme/plot however, there were still some parts of the movie that fit the edit.

• Was the film well made? Why do you think so?

For my film preference, I would say I'm at 50/50. However, putting aside a bias, I say at the release year and relevance, it struck a mark in the film industry. I believe after The Mummy more films were made to follow suit on its success. The film was well made in its storytelling and the scenery wherein the audience could feel like they were also touring the desert like the characters were. For its impact, I understood how the film was loved by many. For a light-hearted action with a taste of romance and adventure, it had me appreciate it nonetheless.

Rashomon did a great interpretation of perspectives. I have never seen a film that had an untrustworthy narration, it felt that all parts of the movie were so unreliable which made it more compelling. Although there were moments I felt lost in the plot because the storytelling of the characters felt too immersive and could maybe overthrow the narrative, especially with the many people involved. Even if I found that characteristic of the movie slightly excessive (I fear it’s only because it was very new to me), I see why it has impacted international audiences and filmmaking. The underlying themes of Rashomon were more than interesting but compelling. The uncertainty in trusting humanity, themes of greed and power, and the sudden hope for humanity all tied in one film were well connected. As somebody who reflects on the movie afterward, the dialogue and symbolism in the movie gave more than what I expected it to be. While I was watching, I was thinking about what the stories meant to the outsiders and how they reacted to every new appeal. Even the setting from the rain and the rising of the sun held a meaning also. At times, there truly were some overwhelming tones such as the wife being somewhat possessed by her deceased husband, even her screaming calls while the two men were with her. The intensity still adds to the story, as if every new perspective became more intense than the other.

I always assumed that Japanese films had a comical feel, whether in editing, dialogue, or soundtrack. Rashomon utilized all themes into something more complex. I think its style has something to do with the unexpectedness that the movie gave. That particular effect is hard to execute, especially through audiences who are sharp watchers. With Rashomon, it was unclear from start to finish who was worth trusting to follow through which made the audience's experience more enticing. I feel that varied perspectives also hold multiple symbolisms and signs that can either make the character credible or not. I’ve noticed the comparison of their life status, their work, their daily lives, and so on, and how it affects what benefits them in the story more than what happened. That touch of different realities also helps shape the film and make it even more diverse. All in all, Rashomon’s appeal to international audiences and filmmakers in general has been made clear.

The thriller, film noir, and criminal genres are all represented in Alfred Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, which offers a compelling and tense story that keeps the audience guessing as the two main characters are caught up in a perilous plot. Despite its age, I was enthralled by Hitchcock's brilliant photography and narrative decisions in this noir, which was the first black-and-white movie I had seen from this director. The careful preparation of every murder is a clear indication of its criminal components, and the film's exquisite execution of these moments heightens the suspense and adds levels of risk and unpredictability to the narrative.

The film skillfully employs these three genres to enhance its visual storytelling, music, and cinematography. The shooting angles delicately portrayed the contrast between their lifestyles and power dynamics, while the music created a sense of urgency and tenseness whenever the two characters clashed. The story's upcoming dramatic changes are symbolized by the lighting and usage of shadows, which gave depth and emotion, particularly during their nocturnal interactions. With its fairly normal "meet-cute" at the beginning and its swift transformation into something far darker and more nuanced, the film's iconography offers an intriguing spin on a thriller.

• How much would you be interested in exploring the other films of Alfred Hitchcock?

My first impression of Alfred Hitchcock's work was Strangers on a Train, and I've always heard that he had a distinct style. I was instantly captivated by his storytelling and suspenseful storytelling. In light of the ever-evolving film business and the emergence of new directors, it's fascinating to observe how early filmmakers created their distinctive styles without the use of modern technology. I found Hitchcock's use of suspense and noir-style photography to be very striking, and I cherished how each shot and lighting decision heightened the tension. I was captivated by this film and am now eager to watch more of his work to learn more about what drew him to this aesthetic and how he developed it over time.

• Alfred Hitchcock has a signature wherein he always has a cameo role in his films. His picture is below. Did you spot him in the film? 

To be honest, I was too preoccupied with whether Guy would escape the police to notice Alfred Hitchcock's brief appearance in the movie, even though he did appear in a few of the scenes. It brought to mind Stan Lee's appearances in Marvel films, and as a huge Marvel fan, I've always enjoyed seeing directors in their own productions. I always look forward to them because, for some reason, they provide a fleeting opportunity to appreciate the creative mind behind what we're viewing. I regrettably missed Hitchcock's this time around because I don't know his appearance, but I will definitely be watching the upcoming ones as my interest in his movies grows.

When I watched my grandfather watch films like Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon as a kid, I assumed they would follow a certain pattern: start with a royal or noble setting, then progress to revolt or furious action. Those expectations were met when I rewatched Crouching Tiger during my free time. Given my grandfather's fondness for related movies, I wondered if these tales shared a common subject. I expected forbidden love, and fate to be major themes. Even though I don't frequently see these kinds of films, I am aware of how they are usually portrayed thanks to the media.

• After watching the film, were those expectations you had fulfilled, cheated or disappointed? How so?

Undoubtedly, my expectations were met. I was better able to understand the film's structure after learning how stories are told through acts. I admired the Set-Up's creation of a calm yet strong culture and a sophisticated environment that captivated me right away. Jen Yu's apparently modest demeanor and the interest in the sword were both excellent foreshadowing, suggesting that she was concealing something. Since the subsequent acts centered on the sword, the tension building to its significance was skillfully done.

The Confrontation stage was quite interesting. Jen's mask disguise started it all, and it grew into something much more. The movie also delicately addressed romantic topics, particularly through the covert relationship of Li Mu Bai and Yu Shu Lien, even if their tale was less important than Jen's quest. Intense fight sequences and her run-ins with the bandit Lo were pivotal moments that led to the conclusion.

The fact that Jen's resolution wasn't as clear-cut as in other stories was what I liked best about the movie. She was placed in a middle ground between merely avoiding her responsibilities and completely embracing disobedience, which gave her character nuance and complexity. Characters like Jen either totally reject or embrace their origins in many similar films, but in Jen's case, the movie left me wondering: What would she do next?

• A lot of English online synopses and summaries of this film have a big misconception when describing the relationship between two main characters. What is it and how would it affect the narrative for an audience member who hasn't seen the film?

The notion that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is mostly about a blatant romance between Li Mu Bai and Yu Shu Lien is a frequent misunderstanding in many English synopses. In contrast to the intense, defiant love between Jen Yu and Lo, their love is actually softer since it is bound by duty. As a result, viewers who are not familiar with the movie may start concentrating on Jen and Lo, whose relationship is characterized by intense tension and rash decisions. This has an impact on the way the tale is delivered because the movie expresses internal conflicts through action rather than conversation. The film's action is its main focus, with Jen's fierce fights, particularly against Shu Lien and Li Mu Bai, carrying greater emotional weight than words. Movies like Crouching Tiger, in my opinion, occasionally have trouble striking a balance between a heroic journey and a love tale. Although the movie attempts to examine all three, its strong emphasis on action makes Jen's self-discovery seem more important than the subdued tragedy of Mu Bai and Shu Lien's romance.

But anyway, here is my character analysis.

Neo's path to become "The One" is so smoothly timed that he is the ideal illustration of a protagonist. He starts out as a regular guy who questions reality, but with a combination of training, skepticism, and pure willpower, he abruptly changes into this extraordinarily strong person. It's the traditional hero's journey where he begins uncertainly and ultimately embraces his fate, and the montage of him learning and developing into his position is such a fulfilling arc. He has to earn the role of hero in The Matrix, and the film takes its time leading up to the point at which he ultimately believes in himself. This is what makes the movie somewhat fulfilling cause you get to see the perspective from zero to the Neo he is now.

In my opinion, the real antagonist is not just Agent Smith but The Matrix itself—the simulation. Although Smith serves as the primary spokesperson for the resistance, he is more of a system enforcer than the instigator of persecution. The entire artificial reality that enslaves people is the true menace. Neo must battle this enormous, nearly unstoppable force, which is more than simply a physical foe—it's a whole universe designed to keep him helpless. Because of this, the conflict seems to be about Neo versus a whole reality that is intended to manipulate him rather than just Neo versus Smith.

Although Trinity is undoubtedly the sidekick, she serves as Neo's mentor and leader. One of the first individuals to genuinely believe in him, she is extremely talented and constantly has his back. She plays a crucial role in guiding him and providing guidance when he is uncertain, in addition to simply being there to support him. However, Morpheus is the one who assumes the role of reason the most. He is a mentor as well as a believer, albeit one that is nonetheless based in strategy. The intriguing thing about him is that he is not mindlessly adhering to the Oracle's advice or fate. He differs from the usual "wise leader" archetype in that he combines reason, and strategic thinking. He plays his position with a balance of vision and realism, but he also recognizes the risks and believes in Neo.

The Oracle, on the other hand, is an excellent Guardian figure. Her function is interesting because her instruction is not straightforward. She delivers cryptic signals that can be followed or challenged, putting the protagonists in control. It's not about blindly accepting fate; rather, it's about analyzing what she says and deciding whether or not to take action on it. That complexity adds dimension to the plot because it pushes Neo and the others to make genuine decisions rather than simply repeating a prophecy word for word. The Oracle serves as both a protector and a test, making her presence in the plot both meaningful and surprising.

And of course, Cypher is an interesting character because he doesn’t start off as a full-on villain—he’s more of a skeptic who slowly slides into being a contagonist. His exhaustion with the world he lives in is what makes his betrayal so compelling. Unlike the others, who have a strong sense of purpose, Cypher is tired. He’s seen the reality outside the Matrix, and instead of finding freedom in it, he only finds suffering. That’s why he doubts Neo so much—not because he’s just trying to be difficult, but because he genuinely doesn’t believe in the idea of “The One” or the revolution. He sees Morpheus’s faith as blind optimism and thinks the fight against the machines is a lost cause. What makes him even more tragic is that, despite knowing the truth about the simulation, he continues to prefer it over reality. He recognizes that the world within the Matrix is fictional, yet it's a better option than the dreary existence in Zion. This is what distinguishes him from the rest of the crew: while others regard independence as worth the effort, he sees it as a futile battle. That's why he sides with Agent Smith. He's not betraying his team because he's nasty; he's doing it because he wants to leave what he regards as a bad life. This qualifies him as a contagonist—he is not the major villain, but he actively hinders Neo's progress by casting doubt and disturbing the objective.

• Why did you think the directors of the films chose their specific color palettes for the sets and props? 

Horror is usually in the colors that are eerie such as gray, red, and black. The three horror films were depicted in much brighter and saturated colors. This choice in color grading was designed to evoke more psychological thought instead of the usual practical horror. I think it’s because the films were not completely the normal horror which included murders, supernatural, and so on. The three films oddly brought this whimsical factor into them. The first one had this color scheme which showed the difference of lifestyle between the woman who sold the suspicious food versus the rich woman. The second film and its use of props put great emphasis on the storytelling on the action of the antagonist. To me, it represented the role of being the director and how it feels like to be on the set as an outsider; with a brilliant twist of course. For the last movie, I loved how it was more gray and low in contrast in comparison to the other two. To me, it inflicted loneliness and isolation which was related to the girl’s emotions and backstory. Throughout watching the three, I felt that all colors and props were very intentional to bring the story to life in a more crazed way as if intensifying emotions through its palettes.

• What do you think these choices for the set are meant to convey to the audience?

  
  

It was made to make the audience feel more invested but at the same time more conflicted. The differences in color in various films have been often chosen either by setting, emotion, or aesthetic. To these three films, its storytelling became more uncomfortable because it showed its horrors through well-lit and saturated colors. Audiences can take note of how some color palettes darken at specific times to alert something horrifying or their distrust of how colorful a scene is.

• In your opinion as an audience member, were these choices for the setting used effectively?

Yes! I was psychologically blown away. I am not an avid horror watcher but it is common for me to notice their usual colors and props. The three films were opposite to what I am familiar with, more so that the bright colors gave the movies such a new meaning. It was amazing how such a well-colored movie could entail that much confusion, distress, disgust, and terror in general. The more I watch how the films progress, the more they grow weirder despite the color. It was most effective in making audiences uncomfortable.

• For you as a viewer, what were the standout costume and makeup choices in these films? 

My favorite makeup choice would be in the second film. The second film was about the good director being held in a set by an extra he worked with. For me, just from the opening scene of the woman with long hair, it was already such a great choice because of how odd yet elegant she appeared. Still, one cannot fight how eerie it is to watch her even if she appears beautiful. My favorite choice of attires were the main leads: the director, the antagonist, and the wife. I like the simplicity in their attire but because of their characterization, there was a hierarchy that was soon broken as the film progresses. When the director started to loosen up with his sanity, he began to become messier in appearance along with his wife. Even his wife, her costume was well exaggerated and it truly showed the pain, anger, and betrayal she went through. I feel that it was my favorite because no matter how simple it may be, it changed my perspective as I watched.

• What were these costume or makeup choices meant to say about the characters we were watching?

I believe they meant to say that something drastic will change in these characters. I’ve noticed that in the movies, some may wear timid, unsaturated colors at the beginning. As they unfold in the story, they become more bright and bold. It could be vice versa for some but the message remained the same. The clothing was part of the storytelling. It could be a micro addition to the tale but it’s an essential small detail that reflects what a character has gone through.

• Of all three shorts, which film did you find some sort of appreciation for and why?

I oddly appreciate the second film! I loved the theme of what it means to be a good person and this ethical yet psychological feud. For me, I just admire its wide use of its environment with the set and its practical effects of using every object as part of the story. I feel it was the one movie out of the three that actively used props as storytelling tools. I loved the eerieness of a positive yet merciless antagonist, a director’s crippling mental state, and just the flow of confessions that made it more deceitful. That movie had me wondering what have I done bad and good in my life.

The majority of the lighting in the film is high-key, which means that there aren't many sharp shadows and everything is uniformly lit. It lends the movie a crisp, nearly narrative feel. Although you might think that would lessen the somber topics, it really makes them more noticeable. As you observe these depressed and shattered folks in this incredibly beautiful landscape, the contrast makes their issues seem even more genuine and intimate.

Margo getting off the Green Line bus is one particularly memorable scene. The entire sequence feels incredibly emotional and theatrical because of the warm, soft lighting and the slow motion she is. She seems aloof, enigmatic, and somewhat frail because of the light the sun gives her. It's a fantastic fit for her personality. Royal's room at the Y comes next. The lighting is harsh and flat, similar to the dreadful lighting found at budget hotels. Nothing ostentatious or sentimental, it's a very pragmatic light that speaks volumes about Royal's decline. The illumination makes it clear that he is not at home. The lighting changes during Richie's attempt at death are among the most dramatic. The light becomes quite dim and melancholy, and the entire area takes on a blue-toned, somber appearance. It is entirely distinct from the remainder of the film. That change adds to the weight of the moment. The lighting makes it easier for us to sense how Richie's reality has changed.

The sequence with the private investigator also features a subtle lighting moment where Richie and Raleigh are in the same room, yet have distinct illumination. The light is cooler in one and warmer in the other. Despite their physical proximity, it seems as though the lighting indicates that they are not emotionally bonding. Despite being a minor detail, it conveys a lot. The lighting sort of changes with the plot of the film. It's more regulated and balanced at first. However, following Richie's attempt, things seem more genuine and serious. Depending on what is happening in the scenario, the lighting becomes more emotive without losing its flair.

All things considered, I adore how Wes Anderson maintains his distinctive visual aesthetic while yet managing to astonish and profoundly affect us. In addition to being aesthetically pleasing, the colors and lighting serve to illustrate the plot and the experiences of the characters. I’m excited to see more of his films in class, such as Moonrise Kingdom or Darjeeling Limited!

Let’s talk about the characters. Verbal Kint stood out the most to me, not just because of how the film ended but because of how subtle his whole performance was. His figure expressions were soft, kind of shy, like he was always second-guessing himself. His posture and limp also made him look weak or harmless, which totally threw me off. His speech was calm, hesitant, but there was something about the way he told his story that kept you hooked. He always sounded like he was being honest, which makes the ending so wild because you realize he was acting the whole time. Even the music whenever he appeared was usually quiet, not that noticeable or impactful like the rest.

Then there’s Dean Keaton. He had this quiet intensity, I generally assumed him as the leader. His facial expressions were more reserved, like he was always calculating or plotting wisely. His movements were really controlled almost like he was trying not to leave any trace behind. And his voice was confident but careful. Everything about him screamed someone trying to stay under the radar, like he had something to hide but didn’t want to make it obvious. Maybe that’s why at first I assumed he was the real nightmare or mysterious character.

Michael McManus, on the other hand, was the total opposite. He was loud, expressive, and cocky. His face showed every emotion, whether it was frustration or amusement. He was very transparent and explosive with his emotions. He had this swagger factor in how he walked and talked, which made him entertaining to watch (like the typical bad boys in films). Even his voice had this fast, sarcastic tone that made you feel like he never took anything seriously even when things were going downhill. He was also dressed somewhat too isolated but intimidating.

As for staging and blocking, one of my favorite scenes was the police lineup. It was so simple, but the way each character stood and reacted said a lot about their personality. It’s also where we get a taste of the group’s chemistry and dynamics. The blocking here made it feel like we were being introduced to puzzle pieces that didn’t seem to fit together yet somehow did. As a first time watcher, I’m not gonna lie and say it did not remind me of Brooklyn Nine-Nine. But again, the police lineup made me have an “Oh that’s where it came from moment” as I’ve seen it in medias before. Still, the blocking and pacing, the wit and underlying tensions was perfect for the scene.

Another scene that stood out was the final reveal. The way Verbal slowly walks out of the station while Agent Kujan is putting the clues together was genius. I also felt like I was Agent Kujan (I figured it out a whole lot earlier but still) The blocking between them and Verbal disappearing in the background while Kujan has this moment of realization was such a powerful visual. The fast paced zooms or close ups to the items Verbal mentioned, to the facial realizations that went in slowmo with every name made up for a story. The entire film had been staged in a way that misled us, and now that misdirection was paying off really well. I felt like I knew Verbal was hiding something but because of this great barrier or disguise around his character, you wouldn’t instantly say he’s a killer (literally).

Overall, what I loved most was how every single performance, sound cue, costume choice, and camera move was working together to create that suspense. I was so focused on all the small things because the film kind of demands it that I didn’t even realize who the real antagonist was until the very last moment. And when it hit, it made me want to rewatch the entire thing just to pick up on all the clues I missed.