The Perks of Being a Wallflower

While most people tend to argue that a movie version of a book can never live up to the expectations of the written piece, I would have to disagree for the film, The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Perhaps it may be that Chbosky, author of the novel, acted as director of the film as well, sticking closely to the intended storyline. Perhaps it just may be that Chbosky's ideas are easier with which to identify when displayed by way of moving picture, as he enters into the life of a freshman boy named Charlie and explores the mind of a mentally disturbed high school kid through various themes made possible through the film's excellent casting. (Especially Emma Watson because....duh, Emma Watson.)

 

One of the main themes of this film is the search for belonging among high school students. While this idea may be addressed in many modern day films, not one quite compares to Chbosky's realistic view about a freshman boy at a large public school. Chbosky's blunt displays of high school life such as drugs, sex, and friend drama leave viewers feeling raw as they are able to live through the life of Charlie, the "wallflower" himself, who observes each of these aspects of his young adult life with an innocent mind. Because of this, I think that Logan Lerman who plays the role of Charlie does a fantastic job of creating this feeling in the mind of the viewer. In this way, I would highly recommend this movie to high school students as it allows them to view high school and even the essence of living in a different way. 

Another main theme of Perks is the acceptance of individuality as shown through most of the main characters in the movie. Almost every character in the film has a secret to hide, yet almost all of them are able to trust Charlie with those secrets, allowing viewers to have a greater picture as to the reasoning behind each person's actions, such as the secretively homosexual football player who uses derogatory terms to harass his boyfriend in front of the school to hide his true feelings. This scene particularly packs a punch as Chbosky pulls you into the story of both of these boys, making you feel sorry for Patrick, the boyfriend played by Ezra Miller, no matter your view on homosexual relationships. In this way, it opens the minds of viewers and asks them to be more accepting of individuals--a concept that we can all take to heart. 

 

Because of this excellent casting and these characters abilities to outdo the emotion portrayed through the written version of Perks, I would give this movie a 8/10 and highly recommend it. Because I went into this movie already thinking I would hate it because of how much I loved the book, I definitely think that it also acts as a major eye-opener to the power of film in evoking emotion.

A Knight's Tale

This action-packed comedy is an inspiring tale of a young boy who works his entire life against all odds to become a victorious knight. The movie A Knight’s Tale covers a large scale of genres, including comedy, action/adventure, and drama. Some movies have a difficult time balancing multiple genres, but this movie is able to hold the viewer’s attention and invoke emotional reactions in just the way the creators intended it to.

The humor in the movie can be both subtle and apparent, and is well balanced with the main story-line in a way that still keeps the movie feeling inspiring and dramatic. Its unique take on comedy showed in some of the ways they mixed current culture with a medieval one.

The characters in the film help hold together the movie. Each character is lovable, and the exaggeration of each character’s personality helped for them to stand out and play a different role in the film. Their contribution to the plot helped to tie in even the smallest issues and leaves the situation and results seeming plausible. The classic story of redemption and triumph gives the viewers what they want and more.

The film is definitely worth the watch. I went into the film not knowing much about it to have a less biased review, and now know where to get a few good laughs while leaving the movie feeling able to accomplish anything. With the performance of the actors as well as the plot and execution, I would certainly say that this movie is worth your time. I would give it a solid 4 out of 5 lances.

Sea Of Monsters

This weekend I had the opportunity of seeing Percy Jackson: Sea Of Monsters, directed by Thor Freudenthal. Going into this movie I didn’t really know what to expect. The only thing I did know is that there’s a book on it and that was pretty good. But as soon as I read the title to this movie I figured it would be extra lame (I was right). Furthermore, I realized that the movie was about humans gods. Most of them were sons and daughters and Gods while others were just mythical creatures. Here’s a basic overview. Everyone is in the forest-like haven area. The reason I say haven is because they are actually safe and protected. About 15 years some of the kids got into a battle with a Cyclops. The ended up killing a girl named Talia. She was the daughter of Zues. She later reincarnated into a magical tree to protect them. Then someone poisoned the tree which caused it to die so they were unprotected again. The only way to heal it (Talia the tree) was to get the Golden Fleece and lay it on the tree. So then Percy (son of Poseidon) goes on this quest to get it…. Blah blah… but then he realizes that another dude (Luke son of Hermes) is going after it as well (bad guy). He’s going to use it to resurrect to Kronos the titan who was the father of Zues, Poseidon and Hades. Kronos would takeover and destroy if he came back. He DOES come back but then Percy kills him in about 30 seconds so not a big deal. He gets the fleece then saves the tree and saves the town. This movie was terrible. I was waiting for something sick and non-predictable to happen but never did. They did a good job making Kronos look cool but he dies way too easy and when they do fight it don’t feel climatic at all. They could have done so much more with the plot to build but nothing happened. Obviously this movie incorporates the theme Good vs. Evil because Luke wanted to control the world with Kronos. But Percy saved the day and everybody. This movie is weak sauce. I’ll give it one star, maybe 1.5 for some of the special effects.

Excessively violent movies aren't normally my thing... but...

Pulp Fiction. We talked about it last year, we talked about it this year, and since people keep bringing it up that has to mean something, right?

Pulp Fiction is, at its core, a movie about LA mobsters. Which could have made for a predictable and somewhat boring movie… if it had been written by anyone other than Quentin Tarantino. The movie follows Jules Winnfield and Vincent Vega, two mobsters working for their mob boss Marsellus Wallace. But the whole movie is written out of chronological order, forcing viewers to sort of connect the dots on their own rather than having the whole thing spelled out for them. So that totally random restaurant robbery at the beginning of the movie? Don’t let it fool you; it’ll prove its relevance. You just might have to wait until the end to figure it out.

Here is what I have learned after my first viewing of Pulp Fiction: You cannot even hope to understand what this movie is really about without having seen it at least twice. And if I had an extra 2 ½ hours to kill, I would have definitely watched it a second time. Tarantino takes your traditional blood-and-guts crime movie, throws in his signature “that’s so random…” dark humor, adds in a couple of real-world issues disguised in blood-splattered suits and holding rifles, and then cuts it all into pieces so that you are forced to watch the sequence of events out of sequence. But what makes the movie good is the fact that all of those things were done on purpose. As random as the movie may seem, there is a method to it all such that you can look back on the movie and see that everything has its place. It wouldn’t have worked any other way.

It goes without saying that Pulp Fiction is a revenge movie; most mob movies are. On a smaller scale, there are some elements of Man vs. Himself and Good vs. Evil, especially when you consider the character of Jules Winnfield.

Rating? 4 out 5. Go into the movie expecting it to be totally messed up. That’s classic Quentin Tarantino. What makes the movie good is the mildly sick and totally insane creative genius that it took to make this movie and do it well. There’s a reason they call it a classic.

First Blood

First Blood is a movie released in 1982 starring Sylvester Stallone. The movie is about an ex green beret in Vietnam trying to survive in the US after the war. The movie deals with some of the issues of veteran treatment primarily though the story of John Rambo. Rambo is a wanderer trying to look for some of his old Vietnam buddies. He happens to go through a town where the sheriff does not like wanderer, telling Rambo to leave. Rambo refuses and end up getting arrested. While having a flashback from his time in a POW camp in Vietnam, Rambo snaps and escapes his captivity in jail, causing a giant manhunt for this ex green beret.

The movie primarily deals with the Good vs. Evil theme. Rambo is a good guy who happens to be misunderstood. The sheriff of the town represents the evil for not letting Rambo go into his town just to get something to eat. The rest of the plot is a result of that evil, shown through hundreds of men trying to find Rambo. This film also deals with the Man vs. Himself theme, shown through Rambo's struggle to overcome his fears and memories from Vietnam.

I give this movie an 8/10. It's one of those classic 80's movies. Filled with action and a good plot, this movie is a must see. But please, WATCH THIS MOVIE BEFORE ANY OF THE SEQUELS. ESPECIALLY THE 2008 MOVIE. FOR YOUR OWN GOOD PLEASE

-Connor Murray

Skyrockets in flight: Afternoon Delight

Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) has it all: a successful career, a happening love life, and a fantastic head of hair. Ron's world is turned upside down when his #1 rated San Diego news station informs him that they will be diversifying their news team by adding a woman, Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate), to the staff. Ron's longtime pals: Champ, Brick, and Brian pull out all the stops to win the affections of the beautiful Ms. Corningstone, but to no avail. Much to the surprise of the audience, Burgundy wins over Ms. Corningstone after a night on the town where both admit they are madly in love. Corningstone, being a woman, is not taken seriously in the world of 1970's journalism and for the majority of the film she attempts to be seen in a more serious light. One day, while on his way to work, Burgundy runs into trouble when a burrito covered biker punts his beloved dog over the side of a bridge. While Burgundy sobs in a glass case of emotion, Corningstone takes this as an opportunity to sit in her rightful seat as head anchor. Burgundy finally turns up at the station, only to find Corningstone in his chair, being named his co-anchor. Emotions run high as Burgundy and Corningstone compete to see who is the best anchor until one day after a harmless teleprompter prank goes awry, leading Burgundy to be fired, Corningstone is appointed head anchor. When a panda at the local zoo gives birth and Corningstone is no where to be found Burgundy must be called in to save the day but will he make it there in time?

This slapstick comedy had me folded over in laughter on several occasions, but the best part of the film had to be the supporting characters. Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, and David Koechner certainly steal the show. Carell's awkward personality had my eyes watering from his incredible comedic timing and iconic "I love Lamp" rambling. I applaud Ms. Applegate for her attempt to turn a dignified character into a comedic one and even though she was not in a comedic role, she managed to put her own flair into every line she delivered. Another aspect of the film that had me enthralled was the popular cast of actors and actresses that made cameos throughout the film. 

I was pleased with the overall film quality and I certainly understand why it's recognized by many as a classic. The major flaw it has is that around 60% of the intended humor is given to Will Ferrell and I only wish some of his co-stars would get some more time in the spotlight. With that, I rate this film 4.5 out of 5 lamps.

What About Bob?

What about Bob? centers around Bob Wiley, a neurotic man who suffers from many phobias, and his relation to Dr. Leo Marvin, his self-centered psychiatrist.  Bob goes to an introductory session with Dr. Marvin and feels good about it, but freaks out when he finds out Dr. Marvin is going on vacation to Lake Winnipesauke in New Hampshire.  Bob follows him to his vacation home and befriends Dr. Marvin’s family.  Although they all like Bob, Leo feels he is above associating with patients and tries to get rid of him, although Bob is completely oblivious to this.  I enjoyed watching this film because it is humorous how Bob, oblivious to Leo’s hatred of him, tries to befriend him and his family, but only drives Leo insane.  It keeps all age groups engaged and entertained.  Also, one can understand the situations of both Bob, an innocent, oblivious man trying to cure himself of his mental problems, and Leo, a man who wants to enjoy a vacation with his family without the constant interruption of one of his patients.  However, one is more likely to sympathize with Bob’s side due to his innocent nature.  The most relevant theme to this movie would be Man vs. Himself.  Bob seeks to fix himself throughout the movie, he tries going to a psychiatrist, but that does not work.  He starts making progress when Leo, upon finding out that he followed him on vacation, tells him to take a vacation from himself.  Bob decides to take a real vacation at Lake Winnipesauke and ends up spending a lot of time with Leo and his family.  Though he drives Leo crazy by doing this, Bob’s neurotic tendencies start to dissipate.  He is finally cured of these problems at the end of the film.  Bob has driven Leo insane and Leo steals explosives to kill Bob.  He ties him to a tree at gunpoint and hangs the bomb around his neck; he tells Bob that it is a technique called “Death Therapy”.  Bob believes him and thinks him being tied up with what he thinks is a fake bomb is a metaphor meaning if he does not untie himself inside, he is going to blow himself up.  Bob unties himself, takes the bomb off his neck, and goes to congratulate and thank Leo on “Death Therapy” working.  He is cured of his mental problem, while Leo is driven so insane that he becomes senile.  Though he is driven back to his senses when Bob marries Leo’s sister Lily.  I would rate this movie 8 out of 10.

Hello, Mr. Brooks.

Mr. Brooks

Directed by Bruce A. Evans

Review by Aurora, Wang Yi

            This movie is a kind of human verse himself and individual verse society. The movie is not only about high intelligence, serial killer and split personality. In the movie, it comes up with Original Sin and The Serenity Prayer.

            At the beginning of the movie, Mr. Brooks is praying on the evening party. The pray is from Reinhold Niebuhr’s famous pray The Serenity Prayer: “My God grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change，The courage to change the things I can，And the wisdom to know the difference.”That makes me think this movie is not regular.

            When he is praying, another voice comes out. I remember it is about come on, you have done for a long time, dear child; forget it, if you want to kill it then to kill, not to make life difficult for your own desires. On the way he backs to home, the voice becomes a person who is named Marshall at the back seat of his car. Originally, Earl Brooks is a wealthy, successful businessman recently honored by the Portland, Oregon Chamber of Commerce as "Man of the Year." In his secret life, Brooks is a serial killer, known as the "Thumbprint Killer”. Marshall says that is the last time. That night, Mr. Brooks kills a couple.

            Later, Mr. Brooks and Marshall communicate and fight with each other. This is the life of Mr. Brooks. On one side, he prays in front of God. On the other side, he falls with devil. This movie is not about psychology, but is about soul. It is not about split personality, but is about Original Sin.

You're Next

This weekend I went to see You’re Next directed by Adam Wingard. I honestly didn’t really want to see it all that much but the person I was with was dying to see it and it looked good enough. The trailer was phenomenal because of the fact that so many evil scary things were going on but old very happy almost nursery rhyme music is played in the background which just sends chills down your spine. However it was not as good as it should have been.

The movie was about a family who is eating dinner one night in the middle of the movies one night when a random attack occurs from men masked in animal masks. It is a scary idea and it was well thought out. It was not your average hacker slasher movie and it had a sub plot that wasn’t expected but I still feel that I wasn’t completely satisfied. I for the most part was entertained throughout the entire movie but for some reason that I can’t really understand I still left disappointed. I don’t know maybe my standards for movies are just too high or maybe I’m just being stupid but if you don’t have anything to do one night you should go see this movie if for nothing else just to see the main girl kick some serious ass. Am I allowed to say that on this blog? Let’s hope so because the movie swears a lot too.

Rating: 2.8/5

Saving Ryan's Privates

     I had grown sick and tired of hearing everyone and their dog talk about Saving Private Ryan in front of me all the while I have never seen the film. Ohhh Mama, am I glad I chose to watch this wonderful movie. One of the first things that draws many viewers into watching a movie is clearly the cast. In the case of Saving Private Ryan you could not dream up a better crew. Leading the charge (and I mean this quite literally) we have Tom Hanks, everyone's favorite from many time honored classics like Forrest Gump, Forrest Gump, and, of course who could forget Forrest Gump? Assembling in formation behind our Captain Miller (Hanks) we have the quirky Paul Giamatti even if it is only for a small time frame. Yet another actor that can rally people to the cinema from his television stardom is Giovanni Ribisi. To lay further ice this already delicious treat we have the lovely and talented Vin Diesel, that's all I need say about that.
     Saving Private Ryan is infamous for the way in which it displays war, the absolute grit and despair that consists within is shockingly and effectively present here. The invasion on Normandy was not a nice and glorious triumph as we love to talk about it today in the present. It was a battle in one of the worlds greatest wars, there was blood and death, sadness and loss, and the first 30 minutes of the film is the epitome of war-time reality. Spielberg wanted nothing dulled down, rightfully so, this shows he acknowledges and respects the viewer's maturity. When a movie shows the the full truth of the matter of any situation you can progress emotionally with the characters instead of be a third person party watching others change. A movie set in WWII has the perfect setting for such things forcing the viewer into feeling of immense empathy, anger, mourning, suspense, and many more.
     With the golden cast and brilliant cinematographic direction of Spielberg this movie brings with it a great feeling of immersion. Many movies fall short after they have the cast they desire and writers/directors they wish for, maybe because of budget or lack of integrity, who knows and who cares? The important thing is that Saving Private Ryan did not. Costume design felt rugged and authentic, pair this with the fact that in 98 there was very little computer touch ups in movies and you get a genuine experience that is rare today. Location is another aspect that is critical during production, it is also another area that this film nailed down perfectly. Every scene in a town feels real even though it may be a set, and each sweeping shot of a field or path or etc. is simply breathtaking. However my biggest fault with with the movie is the one time it breaks the immersion for me. Immersion is broken for me at the most critical time, the very end. Having been spoiled with modern day special effects (even though I ragged on CGI earlier) I think the ending subtracts from the movie. It takes the viewer out of the war, the resolution of battle, many people like myself may still have adrenaline pumping, and they just cut back to the beginning scene. Not only does it take you out of immersion but it does it only to feed you a cliche resolution story. Still, this three maybe 4 minute scene is not major enough to make me think this 169 minute long movie is anything but fantastic. I give it a solid 8.5/10, must see.

Fight Club

I had never seen Fight Club before and whether it was the high review I heard, or the constant nagging to see it-- I had to watch. As I started to watch I had no idea what to expect, the first thing I found myself staring at a red screen that usually displayed warnings for pirating the DVD but the words were all wrong. They talked about how I was wasting my time reading the screen and that we are all going to die eventually. I knew right then that this was not going to be some lighthearted movie.

Fight Club deals with the inner battles one has every day. In this case, Edward Norton's psycho ego is named Tyler Durden. Edward's true intentions are unknown to himself as he struggles to maintain control of this alter ego. Edward wanted a way to change his life and he found it. Once he discovers that he and Tyler are the same person, he knows the only way to kill Tyler is to kill himself, this shows tremendous growth in Edward from the beginning of the movie. This was a great film.

4.7 stars.

A Review of the movie Crimson Tide

Crimson Tide is a movie directed by Tony Scott and starring Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington.  The movie is about Russian ultranationalists rebels who take over a military base with nuclear weapons soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  These ultranationalists threaten to launch nuclear weapons at the US and other nations.  In response, the US Navy sends submarines equipped with nuclear warheads near the overtaken base to retaliate or launch a first strike if necessary.  The sub where the movie takes place is led by Hackman’s Captain Frank Ramsey (one of the few US sub commanders with combat experience) and Washington’s character, second in command, Lieutenant Commander Ron Hunter (a younger man with no combat experience but broad knowledge of military history and tactics).  The sub at first gets orders to launch nuclear missiles but soon receives another transmission that says “Nuclear Missile Laun…” before it is cut off by the radio being damaged from a rebel Russian sub, leaving the sub cut off from the surface.  The rest of the movie revolves around Captain Ramsey, who thinks they should follow their previous orders, and Lieutenant Commander Hunter, who thinks they should confirm their orders before launching, battling for control of the ship and, ultimately, the nuclear missiles.

            With two tremendous actors in Hackman and Washington, this film does not disappoint.  The acting is very good.  These two men go head to head, each gathering the support of members of the crew to mutiny against the other and gain control.  They each gather the intensity of the moment trying to do what they believe is the right move to prevent World War III.  This film keeps you on the edge of your seat as you watch each man get closer to his goal only to be thwarted by the other at the last possible moment, every second bringing them closer to the Russians being able to launch a nuke or being destroyed by a rebel Russian sub.  It is a thrill ride that will make you craving more.

            Of the ten central movie themes that we discussed in class on Friday, this one would clearly fall under “The Battle.”  These two men are fighting for what they think is the only acceptable course of action.  This is what the plot centers on for the entire second half of the movie.  An added bonus is that the audience does not know who is right, adding a new dimension to this film.  Neither the sub nor the audience knows what is going on above water.  Could another sub have launched nukes?  Have the rebels surrendered?  These two possibilities make what the sub does crucial because if it launches after a surrender, war between Russia and the US would erupt.  However, if they do not launch the nukes, millions of innocent Americans could die.  I give this movie 4 out of 5 stars.

Wizard of Oz

   In my opinion, Wizard of Oz is a great movie. It all begins when Dorothy wants to run away from home and on the way to see the Great Wizard of Oz; she meets the scarecrow, tin man and the lion. Soon, they become a group and killed the wicked witch of the West. This could be a demonstration of individual vs. society; after helping each other, they conquer the unbelievable task, which is to kill the wicked witch of the west.

  And also, good vs. evil is really obvious in this film. Before they meet Oz, lion is a coward and he wants to gain courage. But, by accomplishing the mission he actually gains the courage by himself. The good witch is kind and loving, while the wicked witch of west only wants power and she does not care about others. She just wants the red slippers, so it does not matter to her how she finally gets it.

  Besides the critical aspects of the film, one thing that I really love is: there is no place like home. I really love this sentence. And one can truly understands it after experience this like Dorothy. Also, I like the part that tin man, lion and the scarecrow sneak in to save Dorothy.

  4.5/5

Reservoir Dogs Review

Reservoir Dogs is a movie that was released in 1992 that was written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. The movie is about a diamond robbery that turns bad when the cops show up at the scene of the crime. The problem is that there is no way that the police should of known about the heist, it was top secret and no alarms were set off. It is obvious that one of the six men was a rat. The movie is centered on finding out who the rat was of the six men. (It should be noted that all the men have aliases) The movie ends with just about every person involved in the heist dead and the admitting by one of the men that he was the rat.  I feel the an underlying idea is that you can trust no one.

 In my opinion the acting in the movie was very well done. Especially by Tim Roth who played the role of Mr. Orange and was in the process of bleeding out the whole movie due to a gunshot wound to the gut. Another actor who stood out to me was Lawrence Tierney who plays the role of Joe Cabot the leader of this heist crew. He gives off that classic feel of a mob boss with a short temper who can also act jolly at times.

The way the movie is made is in a very unique style. The story of the heist going wrong is told my firsthand views of nearly all six men yet the actual heist is never seen. Mixed in with this are flashbacks of the lives of some of the six men. These flashbacks all take place before the heist and make for a very interesting way of telling the whole story. Also it should be noted that the movie setting mostly takes place in one area, a warehouse where the men were to meet after the heist. It is similar to how all the men are stuck in a room arguing like in 12 Angry Men.

I would highly suggest watching this film. It kept me on the edge of bed the whole time wondering who would be shot next and who would side with who in the argument over who snitched. This movie fits the theme of well actually none of ten themes Mr. Salkil gave us… If I had to give it a theme it would be the loss of innocence because Mr. Orange goes undercover for the first time a police and discovers how hard it can be and how fast people can die. I would give this movie four and a half Ian’s out of five it is the perfect mix of a mystery and action film.

Dredd Review

Dredd is the reboot of an old Sylvester Stallone movie which is based upon a comic book named Judge Dredd. The original movie was received poorly and did not stay true to the character of Judge Dredd at all. Thankfully after watching this reboot I am happy to say that Dredd surpassed all my expectations.
The movie centers around a pair of judges who are the law in a post apocalyptic America. Large slum cities stretch across the world and it is up to the judges to keep order. While the movie is named after Judge Dredd, the main part of the development and character depth is in another. Judge Anderson, a psychic, is under evaluation for full judge status. Throughout the next 95 minutes her evaluation is full of drugs, guns, and gore.While not necessarily tasteful, the gore onscreen is true to the comics and adds to the atmosphere that director Pete Travis is attempting to set. From the sweeping shots of the crowded, crime filled cities to the tiniest droplets of blood flying in slow motion Travis accomplishes this for the most part. The film is visually pleasing in this sense if not a little stomach churning. To go along with this, the stylized drug trip sequences are often beautiful as well as horrifying. The dichotomy presented lends itself to the main idea that is present throughout the movie.Justice, crime, and punishment are the most central themes to Dredd. In this world the judges are forced to be judge, jury, and if it comes to it, executioner. While Dredd does not hesitate to execute those who stand in the way of justice, Anderson is more apprehensive. In one scene we learn that Anderson has never been in combat before, and is now caught in one of the biggest shootouts in judge history. She is the most relatable character in this sense. Her innocence is also central to the story, it is almost a coming of age story in one sense as she is forced to come to terms with survival, crime, and justice including what it means to be a judge.Dredd is a thrill ride full of action and over the top shootouts in an almost black and white good versus evil story. From the second it opens you are in for as much as you can handle. Dredd is for anyone who loves action movies or comic book movies. It's not for the faint of heart with its many blood spills and corpses but it handles it well. It does not go half way, Dredd is all in. Not only that, but it never lets up. Among its many bullet casings and broken bodies are beautiful shots, great acting from Karl Urban (Dredd), Olivia Thrilby (Judge Anderson), and delivering an amazing villain is Lena Headey as Ma-Ma. This movie sucks you in and you can't take your eyes away lest you miss the justice being done in every shot. While plot may move slowly, and the blood off putting, this movie is well worth seeing. Four out of Five. 

Edit: This movie can be classified many different ways. The biggest one is most likely Good vs. Evil or The Battle because of how good vs. evil it is. On the other hand it could be Individual versus Society in the sense that its basically the judges versus everyone in the cities. One other possibility is Loss of Innocence in the case of Anderson.