
Having the background knowledge I now have from taking Art of Film makes some movies take on a new twist. While I might dislike them as a common viewer, I have to give the creators credit for doing some of the "behind the scenes" elements. This predicament came true two weeks ago when I saw Max Payne. Although I almost hated it as a "common" viewer, I couldn't help but notice the elements of film used.
The movie starts off in the future, then plays like an explanation flashback. It follows the life of Max Payne, a police detective. He gets caught up in a drug war of sorts, then finally wraps up the main conflict (I won't go into more detail because I don't want to spoil the film for anyone crazy enough to pay money to see it). The plot and characters are build up in a way that is unappealing and leaves the viewer questioning motives. Also, many scenes of the plot don't make sense at the time (or ever!). This creates a film that is not enjoyable to watch.
Although the film does have a sub-par plot, it does do well in other fields such as special effects and camera movement. The special effects, especially scenes with the "Valkyries" are epic in comparison to the rest of the film. Also, the camera movement "saves" many scenes in the movie from being complete disasters. One prominent example of this is when Max confronts a drug user who is seemingly being pulled out of a window, even though no one is behind him. The camera tracks to his left, going out another window and shows a Valkyrie tugging him out the window. Although the actual content of the scene is sketchy at best, I have no complaints as to the way it's presented.
Overall, I believe that taking Art of Film has boosted my movie-going in that I gain a deeper appreciation for the subtle aspects of the film, but it has also ruined it in a way. It has taken the naive part of me that can simply agree with my friends that say a movie sucked and replaced it with a part that wants to look beyond simply the normal parts of a film and analyze the deeper meaning.
