Search
Search results
Rock 'n' Film: Cinema's Dance with Popular Music
Book
Rock 'N' Film presents a cultural history of films about US and British rock music during the period...
Handel
Book
Handel is one of the most remarkable figures in the history of western music. His compositions form...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not one for horror films, but classic movies at the cinema are something to behold so I snapped up a ticket for what turned out to be a packed screening. It was a nice surprise to be treated to a little documentary before the film too.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Smallfoot (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not one for horror films, but classic movies at the cinema are something to behold so I snapped up a ticket for what turned out to be a packed screening. It was a nice surprise to be treated to a little documentary before the film too.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
American Life by Madonna
7.7
Rate It
Album
American Life is the ninth studio album by American singer and songwriter Madonna. It was first...
Folk
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I'm in danger of spouting praise all the way through this review. I honestly can't bring to mind anything that I didn't like about the film.
Even before it started you're gearing up for the main event with the 20th Century Fox tune rejigged in the Queen style, which I thought was a nice touch.
So much of this made me smile, genuinely grinning from ear to ear. The sequences they put together throughout were fun and done in a way that they flowed really well. With no dialogue in the compilation pieces, just the background of music and characters, there's always a danger that something won't make sense or it's done too fast to keep track of. I didn't feel that was an issue at all here.
I really enjoyed the way the creation of the songs were shown on the screen. It's difficult to explain without the visuals, but you could see the thought processes coming to life through the actors. The connection you get between the band members and the music feels very real, especially when you see the tension dissipate when there's a new beat to explore. One scene in particular gave me goosebumps, and that was seeing Freddie looking out over the fields as the hint of a piano tune is playing in the background... we all know that tune, and the anticipation of what's coming next is electric.
Rami Malek really did something stunning with this role. His reactions felt so real in all the scenes. Seeing Freddie react to the crowds singing their songs back at them was such a powerful moment.
All the cast members were great. The band in particular. At some points I was astonished that I wasn't watching a documentary with the actual people in it.
I wasn't sure how they were going to handle Freddie's illness in the film, but I'm relieved that it was done in a sensitive way. The serious note it take when showing him watching a report about AIDs on the television really takes hold when you hear Who Wants To Live Forever playing in the background. It gives you time to realise just how bad the diagnosis was back then. It also makes you realise just how far medicine has come in such a short time.
Rounding out the film with the Live Aid set is amazing. It brings the joy of music, performance, and fandom to life. I genuinely can't wait to go and see this one again.
What you should do
The only reason not to see this film is if you don't like Queen's music.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That live music feeling, those goosebumps, the singing at the top of your lungs. That good vibe is what everyone needs in their life.
Even before it started you're gearing up for the main event with the 20th Century Fox tune rejigged in the Queen style, which I thought was a nice touch.
So much of this made me smile, genuinely grinning from ear to ear. The sequences they put together throughout were fun and done in a way that they flowed really well. With no dialogue in the compilation pieces, just the background of music and characters, there's always a danger that something won't make sense or it's done too fast to keep track of. I didn't feel that was an issue at all here.
I really enjoyed the way the creation of the songs were shown on the screen. It's difficult to explain without the visuals, but you could see the thought processes coming to life through the actors. The connection you get between the band members and the music feels very real, especially when you see the tension dissipate when there's a new beat to explore. One scene in particular gave me goosebumps, and that was seeing Freddie looking out over the fields as the hint of a piano tune is playing in the background... we all know that tune, and the anticipation of what's coming next is electric.
Rami Malek really did something stunning with this role. His reactions felt so real in all the scenes. Seeing Freddie react to the crowds singing their songs back at them was such a powerful moment.
All the cast members were great. The band in particular. At some points I was astonished that I wasn't watching a documentary with the actual people in it.
I wasn't sure how they were going to handle Freddie's illness in the film, but I'm relieved that it was done in a sensitive way. The serious note it take when showing him watching a report about AIDs on the television really takes hold when you hear Who Wants To Live Forever playing in the background. It gives you time to realise just how bad the diagnosis was back then. It also makes you realise just how far medicine has come in such a short time.
Rounding out the film with the Live Aid set is amazing. It brings the joy of music, performance, and fandom to life. I genuinely can't wait to go and see this one again.
What you should do
The only reason not to see this film is if you don't like Queen's music.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
That live music feeling, those goosebumps, the singing at the top of your lungs. That good vibe is what everyone needs in their life.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Does exactly what it says on the tin. A heist movie is probably right up near the top of my list for viewing pleasure, and the Ocean's series would in all likelihood take the top spots within it. You know you're going to be entertained. This did make me slightly nervous about seeing 8 because I was really looking forward to it. The way my luck goes that usually means that something is going to go wrong, but as it turns out, I didn't need to worry.
But it was yet another movie that brought some "technically" reviewers out of the woodwork. "Technically they wouldn't have gotten away with anything." Yes. We know. We're watching a film, not a documentary, how about we just concentrate on having some fun?
I was left momentarily reeling during the screening as I had a sudden realisation... I was missing a person. It hadn't occurred to me that in the first trailer, and in the film she says she needs seven people. I think my brain just auto-compensated her as number eight. So it was when they reveal the plan that I do the count and realise that, wait, there ARE only seven of them there. At this point it didn't even occur to me that there were eight people's names in the trailers, or that when you see them "incognito" on the tube in the trailer that Anne Hathaway is right there with them. All in all that made for a nice twist that my brain had somehow managed to miss.
The only technicality I'm going to call is that with Chen doing some acrobatics that technically brought it up to Ocean's 9.
While it used some of the same... strategies(?)... that we saw in the other films it was still a very entertaining watch. You still get that excitement from seeing them get away with the goods.
Everyone seemed to work really well in the parts they had. The only glaring exception for me was James Corden. I don't mind him as an actor (there's something seriously wrong with you if you don't like him as Craig in Doctor Who), but I understand he isn't everyone's cup of tea. Even from the trailers I was unsure of his role in this. After seeing the film I'm still unsure about it. He didn't sit right for me and I honestly don't understand why they didn't go for someone slightly more serious in the role.
I was pleasantly surprised by the audience too. I had expected a slightly female dominated audience, perhaps more couples, but actually I was outnumbered by small groups of lads and single male viewers. It's nice to see that this is appealing to lots of different people.
But it was yet another movie that brought some "technically" reviewers out of the woodwork. "Technically they wouldn't have gotten away with anything." Yes. We know. We're watching a film, not a documentary, how about we just concentrate on having some fun?
I was left momentarily reeling during the screening as I had a sudden realisation... I was missing a person. It hadn't occurred to me that in the first trailer, and in the film she says she needs seven people. I think my brain just auto-compensated her as number eight. So it was when they reveal the plan that I do the count and realise that, wait, there ARE only seven of them there. At this point it didn't even occur to me that there were eight people's names in the trailers, or that when you see them "incognito" on the tube in the trailer that Anne Hathaway is right there with them. All in all that made for a nice twist that my brain had somehow managed to miss.
The only technicality I'm going to call is that with Chen doing some acrobatics that technically brought it up to Ocean's 9.
While it used some of the same... strategies(?)... that we saw in the other films it was still a very entertaining watch. You still get that excitement from seeing them get away with the goods.
Everyone seemed to work really well in the parts they had. The only glaring exception for me was James Corden. I don't mind him as an actor (there's something seriously wrong with you if you don't like him as Craig in Doctor Who), but I understand he isn't everyone's cup of tea. Even from the trailers I was unsure of his role in this. After seeing the film I'm still unsure about it. He didn't sit right for me and I honestly don't understand why they didn't go for someone slightly more serious in the role.
I was pleasantly surprised by the audience too. I had expected a slightly female dominated audience, perhaps more couples, but actually I was outnumbered by small groups of lads and single male viewers. It's nice to see that this is appealing to lots of different people.
Pinnacle Studio - video editing
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
* Best mobile app, Videomaker Best Products of the Year - 2014 * One of Time's 50 Must-Have iPad...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Last House on the Left (1972) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
To Avoid Fainting Keep Repeating...Its Only A Movie
The Last House on the Left- was wes's directoral debut and what a start. Its a disturbing, psychological, graphic, exploitation horror film.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Typical Oscar Fodder
There are two types of film critic when it comes to the Academy Awards. Those who enjoy the glamour that the Oscars bring every spring and those who despise what the awards mean for film. I’m in the latter camp, I find them out of touch with what movie-watching audiences enjoy and feel an overhaul is necessary to reflect that.
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/