Search
Search results
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/
JT (287 KP) rated District 9 (2009) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
When you’ve seen one alien film you’ve probably seen them all. That is until District 9 came along, and a chance to put a new spin on the arrival of extra extraterrestrial beings from another world.
Director Neill Blomkamp who also co-wrote the script lands the aliens in a scenario that they might not have ever expected to be in, as refugees living in poverty amongst the human race who just want to see them pack up ship and leave.
Its clever and well shot, keeping it away from America and setting it in the dusty backdrop of Johannesburg was a stroke of genius. The use of the faux-documentary style kept things interesting and original, and for that Blomkamp must be commended.
The depths of the story arises thus, an extraterrestrial race forced to live in slum-like conditions on Earth suddenly finds a kindred spirit in a government agent who is exposed to their biotechnology. Agent Wikus Van De Merwe superbly played by new comer to the big league, Sharlto Copley, is a by the books, loving wife sort of guy.
Excited by the prospect of their arrival he thrives on and becomes overly excited in seeing how ‘the prawns’ live their life scavenging for food and seemingly resulting to crime in a bid to survive. But when he’s exposed to a chemical that has disastrous results he must befriend the alien race in an attempt to get his life back. His transformation from government bureaucrat to a lone freedom fighter with a selfish streak (you’ll find out what I mean without giving the plot away here) is perfect.
The overall outlook of the film is not what you would call beautiful, but there is something weirdly picturesque about it. The massive ship that has been hanging overhead for the last two decades is spectacular, not to mention some explosive action sequences which have a fantastic injection of shaky cam to give it a real sense of reality.
It’s certainly gory, so the more squeamish might find some scenes hard to watch. There is plenty of exploding bodies at the hands of an alien weaponry as well as a machine gun firing, missile toting exoskeleton that would make both Robo Cop and Iron Man green with envy! There is an aura of black comedy about it with a few surprising laugh out loud moments from time to time which adds a nice touch.
The aliens for the most part have it tough, while we don’t ever find out the reason for their invasion the realism of them being beaten, exploited and abused by a somewhat corrupt higher power certainly puts into perspective a more sinister and much closer to home reality.
When District 9 really gets going its plain to see that this is an exceptional piece of film making and a must see!
Director Neill Blomkamp who also co-wrote the script lands the aliens in a scenario that they might not have ever expected to be in, as refugees living in poverty amongst the human race who just want to see them pack up ship and leave.
Its clever and well shot, keeping it away from America and setting it in the dusty backdrop of Johannesburg was a stroke of genius. The use of the faux-documentary style kept things interesting and original, and for that Blomkamp must be commended.
The depths of the story arises thus, an extraterrestrial race forced to live in slum-like conditions on Earth suddenly finds a kindred spirit in a government agent who is exposed to their biotechnology. Agent Wikus Van De Merwe superbly played by new comer to the big league, Sharlto Copley, is a by the books, loving wife sort of guy.
Excited by the prospect of their arrival he thrives on and becomes overly excited in seeing how ‘the prawns’ live their life scavenging for food and seemingly resulting to crime in a bid to survive. But when he’s exposed to a chemical that has disastrous results he must befriend the alien race in an attempt to get his life back. His transformation from government bureaucrat to a lone freedom fighter with a selfish streak (you’ll find out what I mean without giving the plot away here) is perfect.
The overall outlook of the film is not what you would call beautiful, but there is something weirdly picturesque about it. The massive ship that has been hanging overhead for the last two decades is spectacular, not to mention some explosive action sequences which have a fantastic injection of shaky cam to give it a real sense of reality.
It’s certainly gory, so the more squeamish might find some scenes hard to watch. There is plenty of exploding bodies at the hands of an alien weaponry as well as a machine gun firing, missile toting exoskeleton that would make both Robo Cop and Iron Man green with envy! There is an aura of black comedy about it with a few surprising laugh out loud moments from time to time which adds a nice touch.
The aliens for the most part have it tough, while we don’t ever find out the reason for their invasion the realism of them being beaten, exploited and abused by a somewhat corrupt higher power certainly puts into perspective a more sinister and much closer to home reality.
When District 9 really gets going its plain to see that this is an exceptional piece of film making and a must see!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Disaster with feeling
“Based on true events”. I can’t think of anything more disconcerting when I sit down to watch a film. When it comes to blockbusters inspired by real-life situations, the outcome can be a poignant movie that captures the heart and emotion of the episode – a la American Sniper.
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Unfortunately, films in this genre can also be a disaster from start to finish with a story barely related to its real-life counterpart. You can forgive me then for going into Deepwater Horizon with an air of scepticism, but was it justified?
Thankfully, director Peter Berg (Hancock, Battleship) strikes the right balance between pleasing the movie-going masses and respecting the events that took the lives of eleven people aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig.
Based on the events that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, the story chronicles the courage of those who worked on the Deepwater Horizon and the extreme moments of bravery and survival in the face of what would become one of the biggest man-made disasters in world history.
Mark Wahlberg takes the helm of this intriguing action thriller as Mike Williams, an electrician working on the rig during the explosion. A supporting cast that includes Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, John Malkovich and The Maze Runner’s Dylan O’Brien bolster Wahlberg’s natural charisma and each of the aforementioned actors give first-rate performances.
The acting from all sides is superb. Mark Wahlberg in particular excels, being one of his best roles to date. His work has been decidedly dodgy over the last few years but his performance here shows just how good he is with the right material.
Nevertheless, at its core, Deepwater Horizon is a simple disaster movie, and carries the genre’s traits to a tee; there’s the obligatory hero (Mark Wahlberg), the boss/politician who doesn’t believe anything is wrong (John Malkovich), the bombastic score (courtesy of Steve Jablonsky) and the damsel in distress (Gina Rodriguez). What it does differently however is focus more on the human elements of the plot – something helped by the fact the scriptwriters had factual events to pick from.
The special effects are astounding, aided greatly by Peter Berg’s often hectic camerawork. There’s very little shaky-cam but the claustrophobic nature of the rig itself is beautifully utilised in low angled shots and sweeping exterior sequences. The scenes showing the rig on fire are so intense you can virtually feel the heat radiating from them.
It almost feels like a documentary, and a very good one at that. The audience is given references throughout the film of Deepwater Horizon’s many functions and the scale of the behemoth is apparent throughout.
Overall, to say Deepwater Horizon is a cracking disaster film feels like a slight disservice to the eleven people who died aboard it in 2010. Having Peter Berg direct was a risky move when looking at his back-catalogue but after a viewing, it’s hard to think of anyone else better suited.
This is a disaster movie with feeling and it’s one of the best films of the year.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/30/disaster-with-feeling-deepwater-horizon-review/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Mary Queen of Scots (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A tale of two queens
I’ve never really considered myself a massive fan of period dramas, so I tend to approach them with more caution than I would a different genre. After being pleasantly surprised by Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Favourite, I suddenly became more excited about Mary Queen of Scots. Whilst I believe the former is a much stronger film, I still had a good time with this one.
The performances given by both Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie are just stunning. Between them, they carry the entire film and transport you to another time and place. They’re captivating and powerful, particularly Ronan as Mary. I loved her character and felt invested in her. Despite knowing how it was all going to end I still rooted for her throughout, and wanted her to succeed. Her character is driven, passionate and tenacious, traits that Ronan truly brings to life on screen.
Aesthetically, Mary Queen of Scots is a wonderful film that is picturesque even during the darker scenes. Both leading ladies pull off the roles and the costumes effortlessly. I’ve never been so impressed by hairstyling in particular, so I would love this film to win the Academy Award for Best Makeup and Hairstyling this year. The styles were so intricate and beautiful, bringing out the personalities of those who wore them.
It is also refreshing to know the film was directed by a woman, considering the narrative focuses on two of history’s most powerful and intriguing queens. This was actually Josie Rourke’s directorial debut, and what a fantastic one it was. I loved the way she portrayed all the ugliness of life in this era, just as much as the regalness. There is one scene where Mary is shown on her period, and this really struck me. I liked how it was normalised, no one made a big deal out of it, it was just a part of her life like every other woman. I’m glad Rourke chose to include this.
As many people have pointed out, this film is certainly not historically accurate so if you’re the kind of person who needs that you’d leave feeling disappointed. For me, I saw it as an interesting case study of both women that’s a work of fiction. That’s alright in my books and I don’t have a problem with artistic licence. It was an entertaining period piece that was beautiful to look at. Sometimes that’s enough. Nobody was trying to suggest this was a documentary, it’s a film.
Overall Mary Queen of Scots is entertaining and very well acted, but the narrative does feel a little too slow and drawn out in places. It’s definitely not the strongest period piece I’ve seen, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad film. It is worth seeing on the big screen due to the beautiful Scottish scenery and the intense conflict between Protestant and Catholic. It’s bold, dramatic and worth losing yourself in, even if you’d only do it once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/23/a-tale-of-two-queens-my-review-of-mary-queen-of-scots/
The performances given by both Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie are just stunning. Between them, they carry the entire film and transport you to another time and place. They’re captivating and powerful, particularly Ronan as Mary. I loved her character and felt invested in her. Despite knowing how it was all going to end I still rooted for her throughout, and wanted her to succeed. Her character is driven, passionate and tenacious, traits that Ronan truly brings to life on screen.
Aesthetically, Mary Queen of Scots is a wonderful film that is picturesque even during the darker scenes. Both leading ladies pull off the roles and the costumes effortlessly. I’ve never been so impressed by hairstyling in particular, so I would love this film to win the Academy Award for Best Makeup and Hairstyling this year. The styles were so intricate and beautiful, bringing out the personalities of those who wore them.
It is also refreshing to know the film was directed by a woman, considering the narrative focuses on two of history’s most powerful and intriguing queens. This was actually Josie Rourke’s directorial debut, and what a fantastic one it was. I loved the way she portrayed all the ugliness of life in this era, just as much as the regalness. There is one scene where Mary is shown on her period, and this really struck me. I liked how it was normalised, no one made a big deal out of it, it was just a part of her life like every other woman. I’m glad Rourke chose to include this.
As many people have pointed out, this film is certainly not historically accurate so if you’re the kind of person who needs that you’d leave feeling disappointed. For me, I saw it as an interesting case study of both women that’s a work of fiction. That’s alright in my books and I don’t have a problem with artistic licence. It was an entertaining period piece that was beautiful to look at. Sometimes that’s enough. Nobody was trying to suggest this was a documentary, it’s a film.
Overall Mary Queen of Scots is entertaining and very well acted, but the narrative does feel a little too slow and drawn out in places. It’s definitely not the strongest period piece I’ve seen, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad film. It is worth seeing on the big screen due to the beautiful Scottish scenery and the intense conflict between Protestant and Catholic. It’s bold, dramatic and worth losing yourself in, even if you’d only do it once.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/23/a-tale-of-two-queens-my-review-of-mary-queen-of-scots/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated On the Basis of Sex (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
What a great way to start this film. Ginsburg walking through the crowd of men all set to the Harvard fight song "Ten Thousand Men Of Harvard", it sums up the message of the film so well and makes you realise just how much of a challenge she was up against.
With such a wide career to work with I was pleased to see that for the most part the film concentrated on that main case. The preamble up to that point was interesting and seemed to be well chosen, I did initially find it slightly confusing initially as I think I blinked slightly too long and missed the point where it showed the year change.
I liked the changing dynamic of Ruth and Martin, it showed an amazingly supportive relationship, when he couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel she was there for him and when she thought she was failing he was her rock. The emotion between the two showed throughout and was a welcome addition to the film and there's one moment that's just so amazing where Ruth looks up at Martin and I wondered for one second if Jones and Hammer were actually in love.
Hearing her listing the reasons she'd been rejected from jobs was mind-boggling and had it been me I'd definitely have ended up in jail after bitchslapping at least one of the interviewers. I think the film handles the sexism quite well, although I'm sure it wasn't quite as "easy" as it appeared. The "unintentional" sexism in the characters was interesting to see and added an extra layer into the story.
I could probably wade around in this film for ages nit-picking about things, it's a perfectly adequate production with nothing massively wrong with it... apart from Martin wearing a short sleeve shirt with his suit, that's still annoying me along with the question: why is she referred to as Ruth Ginsburg all the way through apart from once? I feel like we were being kept out of the loop on some in-joke/secret. I came out feeling let down though, partly because I don't think it was quite what I was expecting and partly because of the ending.
You know you're going to get a showstopper of a speech from Ginsburg but it actually was the showstopper from which we switch to a worded cut screen and voiceovers. This was completely at odds with the rest of the film and it robs us of the gratification of seeing the characters get their win. It almost felt like it was aware that it needed to do something to link it to the modern side of the story but didn't know how.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, but I wouldn't worry about seeing it at the cinema. I'm going to seek out the RBG documentary next and it might be something to watch that covers a wider history.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of those RBG logic and reasoning skills would be absolutely amazing.
With such a wide career to work with I was pleased to see that for the most part the film concentrated on that main case. The preamble up to that point was interesting and seemed to be well chosen, I did initially find it slightly confusing initially as I think I blinked slightly too long and missed the point where it showed the year change.
I liked the changing dynamic of Ruth and Martin, it showed an amazingly supportive relationship, when he couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel she was there for him and when she thought she was failing he was her rock. The emotion between the two showed throughout and was a welcome addition to the film and there's one moment that's just so amazing where Ruth looks up at Martin and I wondered for one second if Jones and Hammer were actually in love.
Hearing her listing the reasons she'd been rejected from jobs was mind-boggling and had it been me I'd definitely have ended up in jail after bitchslapping at least one of the interviewers. I think the film handles the sexism quite well, although I'm sure it wasn't quite as "easy" as it appeared. The "unintentional" sexism in the characters was interesting to see and added an extra layer into the story.
I could probably wade around in this film for ages nit-picking about things, it's a perfectly adequate production with nothing massively wrong with it... apart from Martin wearing a short sleeve shirt with his suit, that's still annoying me along with the question: why is she referred to as Ruth Ginsburg all the way through apart from once? I feel like we were being kept out of the loop on some in-joke/secret. I came out feeling let down though, partly because I don't think it was quite what I was expecting and partly because of the ending.
You know you're going to get a showstopper of a speech from Ginsburg but it actually was the showstopper from which we switch to a worded cut screen and voiceovers. This was completely at odds with the rest of the film and it robs us of the gratification of seeing the characters get their win. It almost felt like it was aware that it needed to do something to link it to the modern side of the story but didn't know how.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, but I wouldn't worry about seeing it at the cinema. I'm going to seek out the RBG documentary next and it might be something to watch that covers a wider history.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some of those RBG logic and reasoning skills would be absolutely amazing.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Catfish (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nev Schulman is a photographer of dance that catches the eye of an 8 year old girl named Abby when one of his pictures is published nationally. She sends Nev a painting of his published picture, which begins a rather incredible friendship. Nev eventually gets the chance to talk to Abby's mom, Angela, and her older sister, Megan. Megan and Nev really start to hit it off and a relationship begins to form. That is until many of the things Megan has been telling Nev begin drifting further and further from the truth. Nev decides to fly to Michigan and get the answers he so desperately desires.
If somebody made me choose a favorite film genre, psychological thriller would quite possibly be my answer. Films that include incredible twist endings (Oldboy) or have elaborate storylines that make you think (Inception) are definitely some of the best times to be had when it comes to an entertaining movie experience. Catfish was marketed as a film that was not only a thriller, but also contained "a shattering conclusion" that was compared to Alfred Hitchcock. In the end, it didn't really have either of those things.
Catfish had this vibe the entire film like it was leading towards something dark near its conclusion. As Nev makes his way to Michigan, you get more and more anxious as he nears his destination. Even the music gets really unsettling. Is Megan's family going to be a bunch of chainsaw wielding cannibals or have Angela and Vince been keeping a kidnapped girl named Megan chained in their basement for weeks to lead young, single guys out there for them to torture as some sort of twisted way to get off? No, it's nothing like that. Catfish never really became thrilling or even came near diving into dark territory.
What Catfish winds up being is an interesting character study presented as a documentary. The film's heart resides in who Megan really is and how the entire experience affects Nev. Once the pieces of the puzzle are put together and everything falls into place, Catfish turns out to be a very raw, emotional, and heartfelt film. What's intriguing is the film revolves around Facebook and with The Social Network hitting theaters in about two weeks, it seems like a bit of a bold move.
What is arguably the best scene in the film is when it's actually explained why Catfish was chosen as the title in the final minutes. It is a pretty incredible explanation and fits the film perfectly.
Catfish isn't necessarily a bad film, in fact, it's pretty powerful once it really gets going. It probably isn't what you're expecting though. While Catfish is laugh out loud at certain points in the film, at its core, it's a documented love story that mostly resides on the internet. Maybe it just comes from personal experience, the way the film was presented, or the on-screen presence of the characters in the film, but Catfish felt genuine which isn't something that can be said about many films that have come out in 2010.
If somebody made me choose a favorite film genre, psychological thriller would quite possibly be my answer. Films that include incredible twist endings (Oldboy) or have elaborate storylines that make you think (Inception) are definitely some of the best times to be had when it comes to an entertaining movie experience. Catfish was marketed as a film that was not only a thriller, but also contained "a shattering conclusion" that was compared to Alfred Hitchcock. In the end, it didn't really have either of those things.
Catfish had this vibe the entire film like it was leading towards something dark near its conclusion. As Nev makes his way to Michigan, you get more and more anxious as he nears his destination. Even the music gets really unsettling. Is Megan's family going to be a bunch of chainsaw wielding cannibals or have Angela and Vince been keeping a kidnapped girl named Megan chained in their basement for weeks to lead young, single guys out there for them to torture as some sort of twisted way to get off? No, it's nothing like that. Catfish never really became thrilling or even came near diving into dark territory.
What Catfish winds up being is an interesting character study presented as a documentary. The film's heart resides in who Megan really is and how the entire experience affects Nev. Once the pieces of the puzzle are put together and everything falls into place, Catfish turns out to be a very raw, emotional, and heartfelt film. What's intriguing is the film revolves around Facebook and with The Social Network hitting theaters in about two weeks, it seems like a bit of a bold move.
What is arguably the best scene in the film is when it's actually explained why Catfish was chosen as the title in the final minutes. It is a pretty incredible explanation and fits the film perfectly.
Catfish isn't necessarily a bad film, in fact, it's pretty powerful once it really gets going. It probably isn't what you're expecting though. While Catfish is laugh out loud at certain points in the film, at its core, it's a documented love story that mostly resides on the internet. Maybe it just comes from personal experience, the way the film was presented, or the on-screen presence of the characters in the film, but Catfish felt genuine which isn't something that can be said about many films that have come out in 2010.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek in Books
Jan 21, 2020
Likable characters (1 more)
Great storyline
If your best friend was sent away to a reform school, what would you do? You'd either let them do their 'time,' or you would come up with a plan to help them escape, and with a pinch of the supernatural, this is what 'The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek' is all about.
When you read this novel by two of the most well-known YouTube personalities (Rhett and Link of Good Mythical Morning), be sure you have plenty of time to spare because this is a book you won't want to put down. The novel follows three best friends of a small town in North Carolina in the early 1990's, when one of them gets sent to a infamous reform school for an accident, they start to uncover mysterious deaths that have taken place there, and begin to fear that their friend is going to be a victim of one.
In 'The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek,' the main characters, Rex, Leif and Alicia, make their debut at a pig roasting to raise funds for a church, whose copper organ pipes had been stolen days before. It's here we learn that the three are making a film called PolterDog, which leads to Alicia getting sent away after a near-deadly accident with the owner and headmaster of the local Whitewood Reform School.
Soon after, Rex and Leif run into an escapee from the school (Ben), who tells them that their friend's life is in danger while she's at Whitewood. While the three come up with a plan to rescue Alicia, a woman who's visiting the town of Bleak Creek, who is trying to film a documentary about kidney stones, becomes a valuable part of their rescue mission.
Not only do we get to see from Rex and Leif's point of view, but we also get to see from inside the Whitewood Reform School from Alicia's view. This view point is much needed to help readers experience the abuse that goes on inside the school (and to realize that Ben was telling the truth) and also to help readers root for the main characters' success in their rescue mission. Even though the majority of the story is the main characters getting everything together for this mission, the writing was done so well that all of it makes sense leading up to the end.
To not give too much away about this book, I have to cut my review short of it. The writing is really good, with the pace continuously keeping the reader going and wanting more.This story also encompasses everything that makes a great novel: best friends trying to save another, small town mysteries, well-placed humor and murder. I found all of the characters likable, and the situations they found themselves in made complete sense in the story. This will be one that readers can pick up more than once and enjoy it each time they read it. As a horror book, this story is high on my scale with scenarios happening that I couldn't see coming.
When you read this novel by two of the most well-known YouTube personalities (Rhett and Link of Good Mythical Morning), be sure you have plenty of time to spare because this is a book you won't want to put down. The novel follows three best friends of a small town in North Carolina in the early 1990's, when one of them gets sent to a infamous reform school for an accident, they start to uncover mysterious deaths that have taken place there, and begin to fear that their friend is going to be a victim of one.
In 'The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek,' the main characters, Rex, Leif and Alicia, make their debut at a pig roasting to raise funds for a church, whose copper organ pipes had been stolen days before. It's here we learn that the three are making a film called PolterDog, which leads to Alicia getting sent away after a near-deadly accident with the owner and headmaster of the local Whitewood Reform School.
Soon after, Rex and Leif run into an escapee from the school (Ben), who tells them that their friend's life is in danger while she's at Whitewood. While the three come up with a plan to rescue Alicia, a woman who's visiting the town of Bleak Creek, who is trying to film a documentary about kidney stones, becomes a valuable part of their rescue mission.
Not only do we get to see from Rex and Leif's point of view, but we also get to see from inside the Whitewood Reform School from Alicia's view. This view point is much needed to help readers experience the abuse that goes on inside the school (and to realize that Ben was telling the truth) and also to help readers root for the main characters' success in their rescue mission. Even though the majority of the story is the main characters getting everything together for this mission, the writing was done so well that all of it makes sense leading up to the end.
To not give too much away about this book, I have to cut my review short of it. The writing is really good, with the pace continuously keeping the reader going and wanting more.This story also encompasses everything that makes a great novel: best friends trying to save another, small town mysteries, well-placed humor and murder. I found all of the characters likable, and the situations they found themselves in made complete sense in the story. This will be one that readers can pick up more than once and enjoy it each time they read it. As a horror book, this story is high on my scale with scenarios happening that I couldn't see coming.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
The Multiple Endings (2 more)
The Cast
The Humor
All Time Favorites
Ive seen Clue about nine times now and it has become a tradition to watch Clue every October. I remember watching clue the first time and i laughed my ass off and i still do that. The humor is excellent, the cast is excellent, the multiple endings are excellent. Everything about Clue is excellent.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.