The two films I will be comparing are American Pie and Road Trip. I have decided to compare these two films because I enjoyed both immensely, and I feel they contained the same type of humour, and are of the same adolescent and immature genre. It is evident that both films appeal to a teenage male audience. Both films were released within one year of each other, in a period which contained many films in this field, ("Dude where's my car? " was also released).
Films of this type usually contain both slapstick and black humour, and go to any extreme to get the support of the audience, and can sometimes go too far.Fortunately neither of these films do this. Despite their target markets, both films appeal to people of all ages. This surprises me because both seem quite immature, and I would expect some of the "gross" scenes in both films to offend certain people. I will compare these two films by going through each individually, and spotting the similarities and differences.
I will then reach a conclusion I will look at all the different aspects of the film ranging from the actors to the scenery. Hopefully I will give the reader an idea of whether the film is good and whether the film is worth viewing. American PieAs mentioned this film is a "teen" comedy. This type of film should appeal to teenagers, usually male.
In this type of film you expect to find juvenile pranks, and scenes that make you cringe as well as laugh. The film is set at present day, in a high school of suburban America. Everything in the film is typical, and the setting is crucial, as it helps to give the impression of a "regular" place with "normal" people. The campus is not the only place in which the film takes place. There are other scenes at the houses of the characters. The houses emit the same expression as the school.
I feel that this aspect of the film is too predictable.It has been seen many times before and the story fails to create its own unique way of thinking and displaying an American High School. It fails to break away from the typical setting given by a film like this. The scriptwriters have decided to "play safe" by doing this and have not made any effort to change. Using an American High School as the main setting of a film does however gives a lot of scope for humour.
The scenery is pleasant, especially the penultimate scene which takes place on a lake, however I do not feel it is important for a film of this genre, as it is not what the viewer is concentrating on.The props used help to contribute to the hilarious scenes in the film. The use of one prop in particular during the opening scene shows this (a tubesock! ), and through this one prop the tone of the film is set. This underlines the immaturity of the film, At the time of release, none of the characters in the film were stars. However since the film, Jason Biggs ("Jim") and Mena Suvari ("Heather") have both became movie stars.
The clothes worn by all the characters are typical of an American high school and institution, and do not make any real impact on the film.None of the characters give performances worthy of any real praise. However the way in which the characters play the parts are very humorous, and the timing is exceptional. The four main characters in the play ("Jim", "Oz", "Finch", and "Chris"), show four different characters completely who think and react to certain incidents in the film. The dialect is typical of an American high school and shows the type of characters in the film. The characters deliver their lines and reactions extremely well and make the film very easy to watch.
My favourite is "Stifler". He plays a stereotypical "goon".He sees himself as a popular and attractive person, but ends up as the loser in every situation he gets himself into. I feel he plays his part perfectly as I found his scenes the most amusing.
One aspect that did disappoint me was the way in which the stereotypical "geeks" and "trendy" people were portrayed. I feel the desire to label everyone in a film is shallow and ignorant. This film does this and I feel it is one element that could have been spared. This film is based on a very intelligent but simple plot; four teenage boys heading for college, make a pact to lose their virginity beforehand.
They agree to help and encourage each other every step of the way! The plot is maintained throughout the film, as each character is desperate. The plot thickens towards the end as the boys realise that what they so dearly want, is decided by someone they cannot control, a woman. They try to entice members of the opposite sex in different ways, and the audience feels with every success and failure they encounter. The film's soundtrack would only be familiar with the type of people this film is aimed. There are no outstanding tracks, during the film, and I cannot compliment any of them.
However they blend into the background of the film and sometimes are hardly noticeable. This definitely helps the film. I feel this is a quality as it means the film is sufficiently interesting. I do not feel that the lighting and colour come into play during this film. There are no major mistakes or glaring errors in the way the film was produced from a colour and lighting perspective.
Everything is clearly visible and the film is pitched well. This film was not beautifully crafted over a number of years. There is no unordinary attention given to the style or camera work.The film has no scenes in which special camera work would be required and where a lot of people need to be put into focus (a scene on a battlefield for example). The film has no major editing errors.
I feel it was pieced together quite well and there was real effort put in to make sure the film did not last longer than it should have. I feel an hour and a half is the perfect time for a light-hearted film such as this as it gives enough time to tell the story properly, and allows the film to have a quick and simple ending. The film runs smoothly, so much so that you do not want it to end.I do not feel that an extra scene or two would have drastically improved this scene, I feel the editors cut was perfectly acceptable.
What interested me about the idea and theme of this film was that it was completely original. The idea the film possesses had not been brought up before in the film industry, and because of this people enjoyed it more than a typical American High School film in which there is usually just a boy meet girl plot. The film was totally light-hearted there were moments in which there was some seriousness, but not enough to make the viewer think.The film was not especially intelligent but the script was extremely witty and there were numerous side-splitting moments.
There is humorous tone to this film, which is never changed. In my view this was essential to the film being a success. The ending of this film is not as predictable as one would imagine. The onlooker is genuinely baffled, and does not know who will do what and what the eventual result will be. It is definitely not disappointing, and the film ends on a happy note.
Road Trip This is another teen comedy.Again it would appeal to teenagers who are usually male and enjoy immature jokes. It was released shortly after American, and is aimed at nearly exactly the same market. The 15 certificate underlines this.
This is a definite comedy with a hint of romance. This film is set at present day, in an American university (college). The college is regular, and is only used at the beginning and end of the film. The majority of the film is set "on the road". The impression of regular people is illustrated throughout the film, there are no science-fiction aspects in the film and there are no special effects.
The landscape of the college is unimportant, but the locations visited by the characters in the film during their time on the road are extremely relevant. They show a different side to the film, which is not usually found in a story like this. The settings and incidents that occur in the film give a tremendous amount of scope for humour, and events that will have you crying with laughter. I feel the period in which the film is set (present day) is vital.
I do not believe that some of the gags that take place would amuse the audience as much if the film were set in the 60's or 70's.The setting helps to engage your attention because you are literally on the edge of your seat waiting for something ridiculous. The scenery is not important for this film as you're attention is elsewhere during the film. The props in the film vary from a Ku Klux Klan head cloak, to a leopard-skin pair of women's underwear.
The props add to the humour of the film and the members of the cast use them in very interesting ways. In some scenes, other would say that the props are taken too far. I would disagree as I feel that the scenes that push the boundaries attract as many people as they repel.The main plot of the film is actually centred on a prop. This provides the reason for the journey in the film to take place, and shows the viewer how different props will be used as the film progresses.
Tom Green ("Barry") was the only major star of this film. He is renowned for his crazy and outrageous stunts and provides a huge amount of entertainment throughout the film despite not partaking in the road trip the film is based around. He is not one of the main characters but I feel he is the most amusing actor in the film.In his scenes, he goes to the extremes, and graphically shows the audience the disgusting things he intends to do. One of the events is where he puts a live mouse into a mouth.
I feel he was ideal for this part as he has a genuine talent of making people laugh. Todd Phillips plays the main individual in the film ("Josh). He plays an average run of mill student whose life is turned upside down after an incident. His acting is very basic yet very good. He plays his part very believably but is not one of my favourite characters as he is not involved in any of the extremely funny scenes of the film.
However is kind and calm and gentle attitude is needed by the film to bring it down to earth. Without him the film would seem over the top and the audience would not be able to appreciate the humour as much. Sean William Scott, who can also be found in American, also appears in the film. I feel his character in this film is very similar to that of American Pie. He is a cocky and wild character who holds many of the "one liners" in this film, which he delivers very well. If he had not starred in American Pie, he would have been perfect for the role.
However, an audience who has seen that film before will have become too familiar with his character in the other film, and as he acts in the same way in this film, it seems incorrect. Despite having the right physical appearance playing his usual role, I don't believe Sean William Scott was perfect for this part. Fred Ward delivers his part as "Kyle" expertly. He plays a stereotypical loser with no friends.
His physical appearance is enough to make the audience laugh as he is so skinny and has a particularly unordinary shaped nose and sticking out ears.He finds himself in embarrassing situations throughout the film and is a source of good humour. He definitely interprets his part successfully and I feel he gives the best performance. I do think that his part however was as funny as Tom Greens'.
"Beth" played by Amy Smart is the main female character in the film. She is very good looking and brings some diversity to the play. With a nearly all male cast, I believe a woman is needed. She is a sweet a kind character who falls for "Josh" at the beginning of the film.Despite her qualities I find her character far-fetched, as she seems too sensitive and very nai?? ve. I do however, believe that her character is needed, to help the plot and give the film more scope for other aspects besides humour such as romance This film is based around its plot.
It involves the main character of the film ("Josh") inadvertently sending videotape to his girlfriend of him having sex with another girl. When "Josh" realises this he is propelled into a wild goose chase in which he must reach his girlfriends university before she receives the video.Of course his friends accompany him or his trip across America, this allows the directors of the film to include a number of hilarious pranks, and scenes that could only occur on a road trip. The film sticks to the plot religiously, and with the exception of "Barry" (Tom Green), there are few other sub-plots. I did not feel that this was a good idea, as the film seemed too concentrated on the one story line.
However the jokes are so comical the audience is not too upset by this factor. The soundtrack to the film is basically unnoticeable, the music blends into the film and the viewer barely concentrates on it.If you do pay attention to the music, you find that it is of the rock persuasion, and the music playing is modern. In the film, Tom Green ("Barry) recites an entertaining song in which he impersonates animals. This is highly tongue in cheek and is the only stage at which music is brought to the forefront.
I don't the lighting or colour has any relevance or importance in this film. This is because the viewer's concentration is fully set on the plot of the film and the actors. They do not feel the need to look at the scenery or the how beautiful a certain place is.However there are no flaws in the quality of the lighting or the pitch and colour of this motion picture. This film is made to a sufficient standard. I feel the film is properly edited and is set to the right pace.
I do not there was any need for the film to go on for any longer. There is a substantial amount of time in each scene and none of the scenes give more or less than necessary. There is acceptable camerawork during the film and there are no points at which the vision is blurred or impaired. The one scene, in which distinctive cinematography is needed, it shows. Josh" and his companions jump over a bridge and there is one picture of the car in mid air.
This jump looks spectacular and it shows that there the correct camera angle was used and some stunt work took place. This film intrigued me as it showed an original type of humour that sometimes went past the boundaries to achieve its ultimate goal- the viewing pleasure of the viewer. I feel this film went just a little bit further than American Pie in terms of "gross" pranks, and scenes of disgust. These sections of the film may seem sadistic but I do not feel that they are intended to upset the viewer just to make them laugh.
Therefore, I believe the film is humorous and light-hearted. The tone of the film is juvenile, it gives the audience a well told story, and highly amuses him. The ending is the pinnacle to this film. It is built up to in an unusual manner. The audience knows to a certain extent, what is going to happen.
Nonetheless he is pleasantly surprised when he is eventually informed. The ending is not magnificent or extremely sharp but it satisfies the audience who has been highly amused by the rest of the film. American Pie was seen as a classic of its own type. It attracted big audiences because of its new angle on humour and its original plot.
Despite its ability to highly amuse the audience, the message being sent by this film was rather sad and immoral. It basically shows that someone who has not had sex before a certain age is somehow a lesser person than someone else is. It gives a message that is welcomed by a society in the 21st century. The story is original and very funny in parts, but it was made purely for commercial purposes.
It did not give a sustained feeling of happiness and ends up being rather insignificant and immature. Even though this film was a box office success, it is not a film which will remain in my memory for very wrong.Even though it has an original plot, the ideas themes and tones are not commendable and essentially very shallow. Road Trip was extremely amusing but again I feel it was a film with no spine.
It fails to make any serious points and is another film, which takes money from the viewer in return for a few quick jokes. It was a very marketable film because it appealed to many people and was very cleverly written. Like American Pie, it does not a film that provokes thought or questioning. If you are looking to be amused, I to recommend both of these films.
If you seek deeper meaning from a film, I would not advise you to see either.