PG-13 and Horror: Can They Get Along?

While taking a stroll through the blogosphere, I noticed reviews coming up for the recently released film, Prom Night. (See image on left) It wasn't surprising to discover that this was yet another bad horror movie. This has been a recent trend with horror movies, but then I came a cross an interesting blog post making the argument that a horror movie going for a PG-13 rating (such as Prom Night) is almost practically guaranteed to fail. (See image to the right) The PG-13 rating came about as an answer to those movies which were too mature to be considered PG, yet were not so bad as to be seen as an R rated movie. Steven Spielberg had an important part in this as he was pushing for something that would allow him to have the heart ripping scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, without having getting an R. The fact is that the teenage market is a large money making group for the film industry, and so by making movies that can still allow teenagers to go and see them without the need of a parent, this allows for more profit. So, with movies like Prom Night, horror movies are trying to reach the audience that will give them the most money. These films are thinking less about the art of making a film, and more about how the business aspect. I thought I'd look into this by responding to two blog posts dealing with these issues. The first is the post mentioned earlier, about PG-13 horror films, written by Scott Weinberg for the blog site, Cinematical. It's titled "Fan Rant: PG-13 Horror Sucks and I Can Prove It." The other post is written by Doug Nagy, co-host of The Movie Blog's podcasts, titled "Prom Night Review." It basically talks about how bad the movie was, but also mentions how ratings had an effect on the film.

"Fan Rant: PG-13 Horror Sucks and I Can Prove It."
Comment:
I could not agree with you more. Horror movies in general have been pretty bad lately, but especially those that try to go for the PG-13 rating seem especially worse. It really seems to have come down to the business side of film making, the money making, rather than the art. The result is terrible stories and sad rip-offs of good foreign horror films. There have been the occasional movies that actually are good, but they are few and far between (and Tremors, although I really like it, does not really feel like a horror film to me). It really is sad to think that the rating that originally seemed like a good way to open more movies to a younger audience now seems like mainly a target film companies want to target in order to make some cash. Rather than being a benefit, it's more of a restriction, because now film makers have to make their films fit within certain limitations rather than being allowed to stretch out and let their creativity decided how the film should be (and whatever gory results that may come along with it). I agree that it seems like the best movies are the bloody ones, like the original Halloween, or A Nightmare on Elm Street, or The Exorcist which had many other gruesome, if not bloody, scenes. Although, I feel like the blood shouldn't be key to a good horror movie. This could be partly because I'm more into the psychological aspect of horror. For example, The Ring, not the American rip-off, but instead the original Japanese film, seemed much better, and yet had less in it. When people died in the American version, they looked like drained out corpses, but in the Japanese version, they looked like they were frozen in their last moment of terror, which seemed so much creepier. There was no blood. A lot of these Asian horror films seem to be going for this psychological side of horror, and for me it seems very effective. But then, I'm also a fan of Asian cinema, so I'm a bit biased. Still, it works. How do you feel about this? It's sad that the good horror films now seem to be only found outside the U.S.

"Prom Night Review"
Comment:
Thank you for enduring such a movie so as to provide us with a review. Also, congratulations on the kittens! If I had not already decided to stay away from this film, reading your review would have helped me make the decision. Although I love all sorts of films, I find myself avoiding many these days, especially horror films. They just seem to recycle the same formula, over and over, without attempting to make any drastic, and possibly interesting, changes. So now, I just tend to avoid these films altogether. I often end up having to look outside of the U.S. to find a good horror film. I recently came across an interesting blog that was talking about how PG-13 horror films just never seem to work out, because the PG-13 rating becomes a target for the movie companies so that they can get their films out to a larger audience. It becomes more about business than art. He also argues that horror films pretty much need some sort of blood, gore, or at least some kind of shock value in order to be a good film. I thought this was interesting because you mention how the movie seems to have held off the realistic side of things (such as the lack of blood despite a slit throat) in order to keep the PG-13 rating. And, as use said, a slasher film needs blood. The term alone, "slasher," already implies that there should be blood. But how do you feel about the need for blood in general in a horror movie? Do you think it's necessary to make it a good film? It's expected with most horror films, but I feel like it's not necessary to be successful. It will require good story telling and suspense to achieve it, but I still think blood doesn't need to be a factor. But it should not be absent if what's going on in the scene requires it. Because it's true, it does seem far less believable when a dead body with a large open wound lays there without a pool of blood.

Film Versus Digital: Who Will Win?

In earlier posts I have brought up how digital technology has come so far that anyone can be a filmmaker. It's true, the digital age has allowed for more independent filmmakers to go out there and make movies. But despite this fact, there is still a question of which is better, digital or film. Each side has their benefits and drawbacks, and adding them up, it's difficult to say which is the best. And right now, both are used commonly, from commercials, to television shows, and big budget feature films. The television show, Heroes, is shot on 35mm film, but then there's Superman Returns (see image on the right), which was shot digitally. Here at USC, I've been lucky enough to have had the chance to work with film and digital technology, and I've been able to see the advantages of each. But even the film school has been making changes, and a lot of the film classes I've taken are going digital, when before they used film. It's great that the world of movies is embracing new technology, but it will not yet give up the old ways; there is a reason digital technology still strives to replicate film. Despite the benefits that digital offers in the film making process, it still doesn't replace the fact that it doesn't look as good as film does.

When shooting a movie, a lot of time is spent lighting the set, making sure everything looks right. The camera needs to be loaded with film, which requires skill and time (film needs to be loaded in darkness, often in a little tent, so one has to learn to load based on touch). And when working with film, the light needs to be measured, so that the film can pick it up so it shows up the way it is meant to be. Then there's the problem of not knowing how things have turned out until the film has been sent to the labs to process it which can take a day or two. Also, there are the mishaps that may happen, like the film getting caught somewhere in the camera and bunching up, the little problems that can cause much pain and wasted time. With digital technology, it eliminates a lot of those troubles. Loading the camera involves pressing a button, sliding in the tape, and closing the lid. There's no film to get bunched up in the camera, although there may be the occasional tape troubles, but those are few and far between. Another benefit is that all one needs to do is plug a monitor to the camera and the image presented is the actual image, the final image without any processing needed to be done. So it eliminates the wait, and allows the results to be viewed and reviewed after being shot. It also gives that instant image to work with when setting lights. There's no question whether a light it too bright or too dark, because it can be seen right away. Digital does certainly seem to have an edge in making the production process much easier and less troublesome. It's also cheaper to use than film. But cinematographer Bobby Byrne, of the show Titus, mentions how because the camera operator now looks through a little screen in the eyepiece of the camera, rather than looking through the actual lens of the camera, it makes it hard to notice things like lens flares (caused by light hitting the camera lens). "My operators can't see them on their small video monitors. Flares, therefore, have become totally my responsibility." The job of looking out for those problems now goes to whoever is watching the monitor during the shoot. So, digital technology does have some side effects.

While shooting digitally does make working on the set easier, there is still the one all important factor: what is the result? How does the digital image compare to that shot on film. This is where things become clear. Digital technology, although it has come a long way, still cannot hold up to film in picture quality. It has difficulty handling colors like red and white, and it mutes a lot of the other colors. That's not to say that it looks bad, but when compared to film, there is still a difference. Film can pick up a much wider range of colors, bright and dark, and lay it all out to be seen. This can be seen in things like clothing and fabrics, which have different colors and designs. A digital image will not provide as much of a visual display and give it justice. There's also the problem that a lot of digital cameras cannot handle certain patterns in things like clothing. There are things that it has a little more difficulty processing. Another difference between the two is depth of field, and how much control each medium has over it. Depth of field is how much of what is in focus in front of and behind a subject in the shot. It's more difficult to control in digital because a lot of the shot will be in focus, which is not always the wanted result. One other issue, which I recently discovered during a meeting with Garret Smith, an employee of Technicolor, is the storage life of each medium. Film lasts much longer, and is cheaper in the long run. Garret backs up this fact by saying that, thanks to film , today we are able to see re-releases of old movies, which are restored and look better than even the original copy. Digital, on the other hand, has to be constantly backed up and replaced, especially as the technology changes. This ends up being much more costly. Film holds up better over time.

The fact is, digital technology is not yet up to par with film, and it continues to try and replicate it. So, until it can actually achieve the same results, film still will be dominant in terms of what the movie looks like in the end. And really, that's what matters, so while using film may be tedious, it's definitely worth the time and effort because it looks great. We're transitioning from film to digital, and right now both are being used just as frequently as the other. There are some directors, like Robert Rodriguez, who swear by digital ("...digital is immediate. We can move really fast."), and then there are those like Steven Spielberg, who choose to stick with film because they feel it is better ("...a film frame is alive with movement ..."). While I enjoy using film, I will, for at least right now, be using digital technology. It's high quality, and much more affordable for a beginning filmmaker, and, as I said earlier, it's easier to use. But I definitely won't turn down the chance to make a movie on film! (See left!)

Movie News from the Net: An Endless Source of Information

Like my earlier post, I have searched the internet, looking for possible sources of info regarding film that I can share with you, and I didn't come back empty handed (see linkroll to the right). Using the Webby and IMSA criteria to judge the quality of site, this post should help provide more resources to help broaden one's knowledge of the latest happenings in film. One area that I have not really covered is the movie sections of newspaper sites. Since a lot of the world is moving to the internet, newspapers are following the trend, and putting their articles up for easy access. The Los Angeles Times' movie section has a very simple layout, which isn't bad, but it doesn't stand out. It does cover a lot of major news in film, but one thing that would be nice would be a place for readers to leave comments, because it seems to lack that interactivity that other sites have. The New York Times' film section avoids this problem, by having a place for readers to put up their own reviews of movies. Also, a great part of this site is the content, because not only does it bring up news, it also has short pieces about historical happenings in film and the lives of those that made them. The visuals for this site is also a little bland, but it's hardly noticed, as it makes up for it in content. Guardian.co.uk is a British newspaper's website, which has a nice look, and puts all the latest news right in the beginning so it's easy to find, which is nice. But for a British site, it seems to cover more of other countries films, and less of its own. To make up for that, there's The Independent's film section. Not only does it cover latest film news in the U.S. and around the world, but a nice part of it is that it talks about what's happening in England's film industry. The only issue is that it only puts out a few of the articles on the main page, and it's a little difficult finding the others.

The Hollywood Reporter is a sort of newspaper website, but for a paper just about the entertainment industry. The content is great with it listing all the latest news, big or small, happening in the industry. Unfortunately, the site's layout isn't the best, because it's not so easy to navigate and find articles. Another form of news and info, magazines, has followed the trend of putting it's stuff online, and one example is Total Film. The nice thing about their site is that the biggest news is right up in the beginning of the main page, easy to notice. One thing I noticed about the site, though, is that several of the stories are short, and often further details come from links they provide which take readers to a lot of the newspaper websites of mentioned earlier in this blog. Entertainment Weekly is also good about making things easy to find. Another great thing is the content, because it includes interesting little segments, like the "20 worst comic-book movies ever." The site only seems to lack the amount of news it covers, as it seems to cover the biggest news and movie blockbusters. Empire magazines' website is great in many ways (see image on the right). It covers a lot of the latest news, and often provides "first look" pictures of movies people are looking forward to. Plus, the look of the site is pretty sleek. The only problem is that it may seem a little bit cluttered, but that's hardly noticeable with all the interesting things it offers. Blogs are the internet's news source, and so, to add to this list of printed news that have moved online, here are a couple of good movie blog websites. The Movie Blog is a great site for the latest news and rumors in the film industry. The only downside to it is that the look is really simplistic, and a little boring. /Film is great about covering movie news and rumors, but it also looks into lesser known, interesting subjects related to larger films. The only problem this site faces is, again, the look of the site isn't so appealing. But something like look is not so big a deal when the content is good, because, in the end, that's what really matters. Hopefully these sites will further provide more resources to expand one's knowledge of film. With the internet's size, these sites are just a little taste of what one can find. Enjoy!

Film School: Is It Necessary?

There is an ongoing debate whether or not film school is necessary for a career in film making. I am currently attending film school here at USC, but even I feel that it is not required in order to make movies. It's true that there are benefits, but it's possible to succeed without paying a penny for film school (the money can instead go to the movies being made!). The truth is there are benefits to both sides. But while Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg went to film school, there are those, like Quentin Tarantino (see image to the left) who never went. Tarantino even dropped out of high school, and yet he is still just as successful as other big name directors. There is living proof for both sides of the argument, but while it's possible to make films without going to school, it certainly can help.

Why go to film school? "I decided to go to film school because I loved the idea of making films." This is George Lucas' answer. Many have taken this path, such as Bryan Singer, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, and, as just mentioned, George Lucas. We all know their names. Going to film school offers the opportunity not only to learn about the different aspects of film making, but also to make mistakes. Which is valuable because in the real world it costs money to make mistakes, where as in school, mistakes can be learned from for free. And the instructors are all wise in the ways of the work, and can offer a lot of experience in the classroom that would possibly have taken longer to learn out in the real world. The result of going to school is that when one comes out of it, they are pretty much a jack of all trades, and therefore will not be as surprised by what comes their way on the job as they would if they had never gone through it before. So, it really prepares people for the real world. But probably the biggest benefit, one that everyone agrees on, is the connections. Going to film school puts a person together with a lot of people they will be working with in the future. By getting to know them and work with them, it establishes a contact that may be used later to get a job, or to look for extra help on a movie. And a lot of this business relies on who knows whom. Coming out of film school, they'll not only have a broad knowledge of the business, but also a list of names and numbers, and with both, they can go out and start working!

Is film school really necessary? As mentioned earlier, Quentin Tarantino is living proof of how one can become successful without it. In fact, most of his education came from his vast knowledge of films, as he worked in a video store. Film school is expensive. That amount of money put into going to school could probably cover the cost to make a low budget movie. And many directors start out by making a low budget movie. Robert Rodriguez made his first feature, El Mariachi, with seven thousand dollars, much of which he earned by letting his body be used for drug experiments. Rodriguez emphasizes the fact that anyone can be a film maker (although he went to film school at the University of Texas). He says, "the moment you think that you want to be a filmmaker, you're that," in something he calls ten-minute film school, which can be found on DVDs of his movies. And it's true. A lot of what is learned in film school is available through the internet, and the rest comes from the willingness of the person to take what they learn and put it to use. And another fact is that, in this digital age, it's easy to make movies. Digital video cameras are very affordable, compared to when there were only film cameras, and now people can get their films out to the world through the internet. A good example is called Chad Vader (see image to the right), a fan film series on YouTube which became popular on the internet and has gone on to win at several festivals.

When it comes down to the decision whether or not one should go to film school, it's really up to the person. The fact is, each side has their benefits, but it is possible to be a successful film maker without going to school. And likewise, it's possible that, even with a degree in film, one may still find it difficult in the world. A degree is not a guarantee, but what comes with going to school definitely gives an extra push into the business. I chose to go to film school because the fact was I had ideas for movies, but did not have a clue how to make them. I had not touched a video camera in my life until going to USC, and since coming here, I can definitely say that, while I'm am by far not an expert in any field in film making, I am at least comfortable and know what's going on. And I've met many talented film makers along the way who I can see myself working with in the future. True, film school is not necessary to succeed, but it can help. But this is a choice that has to be made by the person, and not just by the facts they read about.

The Linkroll: Surfing for Movies

In my last post, I talked about how the internet and blogs allow audience members to now have a more active part with movies. So to keep with that theme, I figured I should share with you some websites and blogs that can point you in the right direction, some of which I check constantly for the latest news in the movie industry (see link roll on the right). To help give an idea of how good these websites are, I will be using the Webby Awards Criteria and the IMSA Criteria for judging websites and blogs. Since we're covering the movie industry, it would be best to first look at the Motion Picture Association of America, seeing as they decide the ratings of all the movies. The website is basic in presentation, with some images of recent movies, but the content is what's valuable, as it covers their system of censorship and what all the ratings mean and what decides the rating. Now, with an understanding of the rating system, one can go to the American Film Institute, a very well respected institution, which holds the lists of what are considered to be America's 100 best films. The website has and overall pleasant design, with the navigation through the site set up in an easy format, plus the site provides information regarding film events, including AFI film festivals. Now that we know what are considered to be some of the best films, we might want to know what other people think about it, and so this would take us the next two sites. The first is Rotten Tomatoes, a site that is more or less about rating movies. It is a bit cluttered with its appearance, but it provides a lot of the latest information with the opening page, and then the search can be used to find other movies and see other opinions and ratings. There are links to the latest movie news, but they're not as extensive as some of the other sites I'll be talk about in a little bit. The next site for reviews and general movie info is the Internet Movie Database (See image to the right). It's not the most visually appealing site, but it provides a great deal of info, not just movie ratings, but also other various aspects of movies, both existing and currently in production. It's a constant reference for film students. When it comes to movie news, where better to look than movie magazines? So as a good source, here are two website extensions of magazines. The first is Vanity Fair, which right from the beginning has a very nice, simplistic design. In that first page, it has links to the latest articles regarding the film industry, and it is pretty easy to navigate through the rest of the site to find the other articles. The other magazine site is Premiere. It's easy to navigate through this site and find what you're looking for, and it even has a handy calendar right in the beginning of the "coming soon" section that gives an idea of what's to come. But when it comes to the latest news, there are four blog sites that I constantly check, as they provide the latest updates on news and rumors in the film industry. The first, Superhero Hype!, caters to the superhero side of movies. What's great is the first thing you see on the site is the latest news, so you know what's out. Then it's not so difficult to cycle through it and look at older posts. The biggest problem with site is just that it's limited only to comic book movies. So, to make up for that, there's WorstPreviews, which covers a lot of news and rumors regarding mainstream films. It does not have the most attractive layout, but it is definitely on top of things when it comes to the latest news. Another similar site is IGN Movies, which covers a lot of the same subject matter, but it has a more attractive layout. All the latest news are laid out in the beginning, and is constantly updated. But this site, too, focuses on mainstream movies. So, the final blog, Ain't It Cool News, offers the widest coverage for news and rumors of the film industry. It's probably, of all the ten sites, the least attractive in appearance, but it covers everything, from mainstream, to indie, to cult films, and it releases news anytime of the day, as soon as they find out. And these last four blog sites all offer the opportunity for readers to comment and discuss on the topics. With these ten sites, I hopefully have offered a start in where to go to learn more about films and the latest happenings in the industry. More sites will be added to the linkroll as I find them, so keep a look out for more!

Movie Blogs: A New Way for the Audience to be Involved?

Although I am a new user when it comes to putting posts on the blogosphere, I am no stranger to blogs themselves. I frequent them quite often, looking up news, rumors, and topics within my field of interest: film. And only now, as I am an actual participating member of the blogosphere have I come to realize that technology and the internet have come so far as to allow the general public to actually become much larger participants in the sharing of information, more so than they used to be. (I know it's kind of an obvious fact, but it's one you don't really think about, and instead usually just accept) People are able to create their own blogs and share any information they discover about any random topic, such as movies (an obvious example by now, in my case). This has allowed the general audience to make movies a much greater part of their lives by having the ability to discuss with others and learn from each other. Now there are sites like Ain't it Cool News, WorstPreviews, and SuperHeroHype, which allow people from all over to post about the latest movie news and rumors, and share new sneak peeks at what is to come in the entertainment industry. So I thought what I might do is comment on posts by writers reporting about recent info regarding movies to come, and try engaging them on this topic of the audience's participation. The first article comes from the site Ain't it Cool News, written by the west coast editor Drew McWeeny, aka "Moriarty," and it is called "Moriarty Wants To Know Why Ray Winstone Has Magic CGI Pants, And Suspects He Knows Who To Blame!" The article looks at recent news about changes made on the American version of the Indiana Jones 4 trailer. The second article comes from the Variety site, written by Marc Graser, a senior writer, and Tatiana Siegel, a writer. It is titled "Reynolds, will.i.am join 'Wolverine': Taylor Kitsch to play Gambit in Hood's 'Origins.'" This article is reporting on recent news of the cast for the new Wolverine movie.

"Moriarty Wants To Know Why Ray Winstone Has Magic CGI Pants, And Suspects He Knows Who To Blame!"
Comment:
Thank you for the constant updates, as all these changes are news to me. When I had watched the Indiana Jones trailer for the first time, I thought I was seeing the final product, and I was a bit worried because it did seem fake in some places, and maybe a little bit overdone. Even though I wasn't able to catch what exactly was wrong with it, at least there are others who did, and they were able to share what they found. I'm still excited to see the hero with the fedora and whip come back, but the older side of me is worried and cautious about it. These pictures reveal more sinister actions at work, and I agree that it's the MPAA's doing. Censorship sometimes seems so bad here in the U.S. Things were fine as is, the trailer wasn't hurting anyone by having guns, and taking them out just seems to cheapen the value that it had. Even though this is probably only being done for the trailer, I still fear the possibility that they might do something like carry this on to the actual final product, or if not that, then the DVD (Reminds me of the Han Solo shooting first issue in Star Wars). I realized, considering how this information came through a forum, and then posted to a blog, that the internet has really become THE tool for finding the latest information when it comes to stuff like movies and entertainment. And the fact is, it's a tool that everyone can have a part in. I imagine that, as you do use it as a means to find some information for your posts, you are in support of this. But I was just wondering, what are your thoughts on the fact that anyone can now report on the latest happenings in the industry, especially since you are a writer and editor of the site? Do you think this is going to replace things like magazines as the source for the latest info, despite the fact that not all the sources will be the most reliable on the internet? Thanks for the updates, I'll be checking back again to find out the latest on what's happening with Indiana Jones.

"Reynolds, will.i.am join 'Wolverine': Taylor Kitsch to play Gambit in Hood's 'Origins'"
Comment:
This is definitely interesting information regarding the upcoming Wolverine movie. I honestly thought that the movie would remain a rumor, or an idea that wouldn't happen, but the fact that more people are being cast has proven me wrong. I still remain unsure of how this movie will turn out. Wolverine may have been the most successful character of the X-Men films, but the third movie was terrible, and it leaves one unsure as to whether or not this film can make up for what's already happened. The fact that there are so many characters in this movie also raises concerns, because it always seems difficult to handle a film with too many characters. It feels like this film is trying to fit in characters that people wanted to see before, but couldn't (i.e. Gambit). Also, this talk about how there might be a spin off of this movie, based on the Deadpool character. This reminds me of the time when there was consideration of making a spin off to Halle Berry character, Jinx, from the James Bond film, Die Another Day. There has been no word since the films release of making that spin off. It seems to have slipped away between the cracks. Now, this is not to say that the film is going to be awful, and fail, and nothing will come out of it. For all we know, it could be a huge success (it probably will make money, whether it's good or bad, just because of the characters in it), and there may actually be a spin off film. But the fact is, these things have happened before, and it has not always been successful. So I don't keep my hopes up. Something I was wondering is, your information about these new cast members shows up on blogs all over the internet, and I'll bet that at least some get their information from your magazine and website. What are your thoughts on this, of other people sharing information they may have received from your site? And if they didn't, and found it by some other means and post it up, how do you feel about this, about the fact that many now can report on the latest news and rumors in the entertainment industry? Do you support it, or do you see it as competition, or is this the motivation for having a website with all the articles? Thank you for the work you do, I always look forward to what you present that's new in the entertainment industry.

Representing Home: Showing Life on Guam through Film

Can anybody go to a place and say they can represent it and show it to the rest of the world? That's what happened a few years ago in a little island in the Pacific called Guam. Film makers from the U.S. wanted to go and be the first to make a movie on the island and show it to the rest of the world. A movie named Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon. Did they achieve their goal? Well, the fact is the movie flopped. Not much of the world has seen the film. But the people of Guam did, and they did not like it. Not only was it a bad movie, but it also was a bad representation of Guam. Instead of showing what Guam really is, it came out looking like stuff from a "Welcome to Guam" tourist video. But a new possibility is on the horizon. Two film makers, Don and Kel Muna, brothers and natives of Guam, are finishing up a film they shot called Shiro's Head: The Legend. And the advantage they have over Max Havoc is that they're locals. By being from Guam, they can better represent it, because they can show the people, the life, as it is from a first hand perspective, and share it with the world.

Max Havoc's attempts at showing Guam involved shots of beaches, hotels, and landmarks of the island. They wanted to take a story and make it take place in Guam. They were just taking advantage of the scenery. Even the local people in the movie only had small parts. The main characters in the story were not from Guam, only visitors. One of the characters in the story that was "from" Guam was played by Carmen Electra. Sorry to any that are fans of her, but she is definitely not a local girl. The result of all of this? Guam was just a background for a run of the mill action movie. And, sorry to say, the movie was bad, very bad. I was there when they had a big screening of it on Guam, so I can say that it was bad with confidence. (And the big screening was on TV, not a theater. Yet another sign of how bad it was.)

The Muna brothers are taking a much different route. Sure, it is a story that takes place in Guam. But unlike Max Havoc, this film is Guam. The actors are all from Guam; they are 100 percent locals. The lives of the characters they play are that of people from the island. The result is actors from Guam, playing people from Guam, taking place in Guam. The result? Guam. What the Muna brothers have done is gone out and given a much more accurate portrayal of the island, no matter what the story is. It will give a more genuine experience of what it means to live on Guam, and be from Guam, than any movie out so far. Although the film is not yet finished, I have seen the teaser trailer, and even in that little teaser I saw more of what is Guam than I saw in all of Max Havoc.

The film makers that made Max Havoc were not from Guam, and so they can't entirely be blamed for not showing all of what makes the island what it is. Guam made for a good location for their movie and they wanted to use it. But this goes to show that if somebody wishes to show someplace to the world and is not from there, the picture painted will not be the best one. But that's why there are film makers out there like the Muna brothers. They come from the island, and they know the island, and so they can create a painting of the island that can do it justice. They know all the little nuances of island life, the little things that cannot be found in a tour guide of Guam. With that knowledge, they can show it to people and give everyone a better idea of what Guam really is, and who the people really are.

What this comes down to is a matter of, "if you want to get things right, you gotta do it yourself." Who knows better about a place and can best show it to others than someone native to that place? Where Max Havoc failed in doing so, Shiro's Head can succeed. It's not possible to say how the movie will do in theaters as it hasn't been completed yet, but one thing is for sure. It will show a much more accurate representation of what Guam is to the rest of the world. The Muna brothers are natives of Guam, proud of their island, and they love it so much that they want to see it shown to others the right way. They want people to see Guam for what it really is, and not as how a failed action movie would show it.

In this digital age, anyone can be a film maker. All they need to do is pick up a camera and they can instantly start making movies. With an opportunity like this, people need to go out and share life, and their home with others. It's a great way for cultures to interact and learn from each other. This doesn't just apply to people from Guam. Everyone can be a part of it, and in the process the world can come much closer together. To all those that want to be film makers, go out there and start making movies. Share something new with the world.