#as for practical effects.... some lower budget horror movies still have it

[dragonwysper]

I think it's a lot of things.

Firstly, it's the lack of human touch. Older movies used all (or mostly) practical effects. And even animated stuff was done by hand on paper. It feels very real and organic. Whereas now, it's all this glossy, shiny CGI, that you really can tell is just CGI. It feels kinda like a photoshopped smoothness. Just. Artificial and devoid of the flaws that make things alive.

Secondly, movies today are made with a primary motivation being profit, whereas older movies were made specifically to tell stories and experiment with things and share themes and messages. Hell, there were even film countercultures for themes that were seen as too gross or perverse to be shown in theaters, that thrived in unprofitable black markets. They made no money from these things. And yet they continued making and distributing them that way because a certain audience loved it.

Now, it's so expensive to live that people have to earn money off all the films they make. And then they have to do it through studios and distributors because it's so hard to market a film on your own with none of that. The internet is so vast, and it's so easy to get lost in it. There are people who've forged their own communities and such, but those are rare, and for every person/studio that's made it, there are dozens more who've been tossed aside and forgotten by the algorithm. It means that really the only films that get picked up and marketed and everything are specifically designed to easily appeal to a vast majority of people, without complex themes or gritty visuals, because it has to be morally unobtrusive in a way that can swindle as much money from as many people as possible.

It's a bit of both, and a little more. But it's created the film environment today. There are some good films that slip through. But they're rare and usually still pretty underground. We don't get highly praised bangers like we used to.

I’m completely out of touch with media coming out, and it might just be me but it feels like media is less impactful than it used to be. music, movies, video games, shows. it all feels like they’re missing something iconic, and the ideas people come up with feel dull and muted .

[marklikely]

its really nice being a horror fan tbh if only because most of the complaints i see online about Movies These Days just don't really apply to the movies i watch at all

[nerdyqueerandjewish]

hello! random ask as requested: what tv shows or other watchable media do you recommend to folks? What does it depend on?

It depends on what they like! I do have a horror movie rec list in my notes app that I can share for people who are into that.

- One Cut of The Dead - Japanese horror comedy, while filming a zombie movie real zombies show up and the overzealous director pushes the cast to keep filming

- Raw - French movie about a woman going to veterinary school, and after eating meat for the first time as part of a hazing ritual, she gets an insatiable desire for human flesh. It is intense and gross!

- Fresh - Woman meets a cute guy, after a few dates they go on a weekend getaway only for her to find out that he’s a cannibal butcher for the ultra wealthy

- The Babysitter - kid hears that babysitters party and invite boys over after kids go to bed, he doesn’t believe his babysitter would so he sneaks out of bed to spy and finds her and her friends performing a human sacrifice. Feels very 80s

- Cam - cam model is working her way to be the number one streamer but as she rises in popularity, a doppelgänger takes over her channel.

- Dave Made a Maze - low budget horror/comedy/adventure (not actually very horror-y) artist makes a cardboard labyrinth in his apartment that he gets trapped in and his girlfriend and friends go in to rescue him. There’s a Minotaur. Mostly I think you would enjoy the fun cardboard set as they make their way through the labyrinth

- Hausu (House) (1977) - Young Japanese girl and her friends visit her aunt during a school break - the house is very haunted. Not actually scary, but super weird and very fun practical effects.

- A Cabin in The Woods - Group of friends go to a creepy cabin… in the woods.

- It Follows - Curse that’s transmitted like an STD, some sort of entity that can take on any appearance is always following you. A person is free if they transmit it to someone else, but if “it” kills someone, it goes back up the chain to the previous person. It’s scary, awesome soundtrack.

If someone is horror squeamish imo the only one that scared me is It Follows. Idk why but i had to keep reminding myself it wasn’t real lol. The squeamish could probably still handle one cut of the dead, the babysitter, Dave made a maze, and Hausu. Dave is definitely the most approachable, it’s barely horror.

As far as tv I’ve been watching lately - first season of white lotus (wasn’t into the second season), I’ve started the sex lives of college girls and I’ve really enjoyed it so far. It’s funny. For people familiar with Star Trek I highly recommend Lower Decks. I’m sure more tv shows will come to me later I just have a not great memory lol.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Michael After Midnight: C.H.U.D. & Us

Do you like horror? Do you feel for the plight of homeless people? Do you despise Ronald Reagan and everything he represents? Well congratulations! You have a functioning heart and mind! But you also might be in to the B-movie cult classic that is C.H.U.D. This is a film that has at least partially wormed its way into the cultural consciousness as the titular monsters have become something of a go-to descriptor for any sort of sewer-dweller as well as an insult used to describe alt-righters and other nasty bastards (it works too since alt-right people do often look like they crawled out of a sewer). Unless you’re a cult film aficionado though, you may not have actually sat down and watched this film, which is a shame, as it definitely has quite a bit to offer.

But you know who almost certainly HAS watched this film? Beloved filmmaker, comedian, and actor Jordan Peele! And I know this because his second feature film Us is pretty much a semi-remake of C.H.U.D. No, I’m not joking. I would never fuck around about something as serious as trashy B-movies and Jordan Peele films. This is serious business right here. These movies are pretty similar thematically and even slightly plot-wise, but at the same time their different approaches really help set them apart and make each film great in their own right.

The big thing with C.H.U.D. is its function as a criticism towards the Reagan-era treatment of the homeless and the mentally ill. Homeless people are portrayed very sympathetically, with them going missing being what really kicks things off… or it would be, if anyone in power gave a damn. No, the people in power only start caring when people they start caring about go missing. Things go from bad to worse when it’s revealed that the C.H.U.D.s are not only mutated homeless people, but that the United States government is complicit in their transformation, having decided to dump toxic waste into the sewers. Aside from giving Jason Takes Manhattan’s ending some level of plausibility, this is a pretty brutal showcase of how society treats the less fortunate, and especially how the government treats them. As far as B-movies go, this one has the most instantly believable problem causing the monsters.

And it is similar with Us. The film has a much broader application than Peele’s previous film Get Out, which is pretty blatantly about left-wing condescending racism. But the way the Tethered function, their nature as failed experiments left behind by the government to rot, and their desire to simply be given all that they had been denied because the powers that be deemed them less worthy is not just stellar thematically, it is the sort of message that in this day and age is needed more than ever. Reagan is long dead and burning in Hell, but the evil he perpetuated still stands.

The big reveal at the end – which I WILL refrain from spoiling – changes the entire perspective of the film and showcases the Tethered as not just victims, but people who if given half a chance could easily excel in the upper world. But they were denied this chance, shunned as mindless monsters, and then are we to vilify them when they rise up to take what they deserve? Both of these films certainly show their “monsters” as vicious and violent, but ultimately they are merely scared, terrified beings lashing out at those who have oppressed and hurt them, intentionally or otherwise.

Both films certainly do show the oppressed commit monstrous actions, but it never really stops sympathizing with them, instead (rightfully) demonizing the government and the people who constantly put them in those positions of oppression. C.H.U.D. certainly is more cathartic, featuring the major government antagonist being not only shot but blown up, but it also tends to feel a tad more exploitative, what with literal homeless people being mutated, though I must stress the movie doesn’t demonize the homeless and paints them as sympathetic victims of a cruel, unfeeling government who just decides to kill ‘em all to cover up their own fuckup. This is one of the single most realistic depictions of government ever put on film, and for that C.H.U.D. deserves some praise. Us certainly paints a more sympathetic picture for its “monsters,” beginning with the story Red tells her captive audience, and while the reveal of their true nature is a bit more sloppily executed than the reveal of C.H.U.D. it still manages to bear down with the full weight of its allegorical impact with late-game revelations.

Another interesting thing with C.H.U.D.: the monsters don’t even appear all that much. When they do, they look absolutely fantastic; the suits are stunning achievements of practical effects, though the scene where one stretches its neck out is a bit dubious. But for the most part, even at the film’s climax, the C.H.U.D.s are mostly absent, with a “less is more” approach being used in regards to them. I don’t recall there ever really being more than four or so onscreen at once, and there’s no massive invasion of monsters. Honestly, it helps keep the film from feeling like a bloated spectacle, and the fact the film slowly builds up to the monsters appearing after a brief appearance in the start really helps them feel more memorable and iconic than other forgotten throwaway monsters of the 80s, while at the same time letting the mystery, atmosphere, and grimy New York backdrop congeal and allowing the message of the film to just ooze over and permeate you.

Us, on the other hand, keeps the Tethered front and center starting at the second act, but in this case this is a good thing; the Tethered have a lot more personality, seeing as they are essentially fully human, where the C.H.U.D.s are mutated humans whose last vestiges of humanity were washed away by the waste the government hid beneath the streets. Lupita Nyong’o in particular is masterful as Red, and is incredibly skilled to be able to pull off playing two roles who frequently share the screen and who are essentially copies of each other while still managing to make them distinct and different. Tim Heidecker and Winston Duke too really do a grand job as their Tethered counterparts, in Heidecker’s case probably more than his regular person character (not to say he’s bad, but seeing Heidecker selling a creepy killer is a lot more impressive than seeing him play a douchebag husband).

Out of the two, I think it goes without saying that Us is the better film. It has all around better acting, it has the most incredible foreshadowing I have ever seen with every little thing foreshadowed getting a satisfying payoff, it has a great soundtrack, it has some moderately enjoyable humor, it’s paced very well… but here’s the thing: C.H.U.D.s big reveal of the true nature of its monsters is a bit better executed. A lot of people get hung up on how Us overexplains the origin of its monsters, and while it certainly doesn’t bother me because the Tethered are still an effective allegorical implement regardless of their in-universe origin, I can’t help but feel the reveal that the government mutating homeless people into cannibalistic sewer monsters and then just… not giving a shit about it was just a bit better executed. However, I feel like watching C.H.U.D. actually helps improve the big reveal at Us by token of being so similar that the latter’s twist becomes far easier to swallow.

Both of these movies are great for what they’re going for. Jordan Peele’s Us is a fantastic horror film that uses the genre as a way to showcase the effect privilege has on those without it, whether you intend it to or not; C.H.U.D. is a classic B-movie that, while perhaps still a bit exploitative, is ultimately incredibly sympathetic to the plight of the homeless as well as extremely critical of the government that would put them in such danger. Both films are fantastic in their own right, and I highly recommend both to any horror fans, especially those who love some sweet, sweet allegory alongside their brutal murders.

Both of these films are some of my favorites for really pushing the boundaries of what a horror film can do, story-wise. I think C.H.U.D. is a bit more ambitious in some ways, being a pretty direct attack on the Reagan-era government, as well as being relatively sympathetic to lower class people in a time when that wasn’t really the norm. For its time, it really is an impressive work, while Us, while certainly delivering a message that has strong impact, is a bit more open to interpretation and honestly lacking a bit of the gut punch that Peele’s Get Out had in terms of conveying and delivering said message. Still, I think Us is just better for refining what C.H.U.D. was trying to do and delivering it in a more polished form with better actors, a better budget, and just overall more intelligence and visual flair… which is not to say C.H.U.D. was lacking either, as it paints an incredibly dark and grimy picture of New York that I absolutely love, it’s just that it’s hard to deny that Peele is just a better filmmaker than the director of C.H.U.D. and really knew what he was doing. But again: both fantastic films in their own right, and both definitely worth watching.

[angieschiffahoi]

Reasons why Terminator Dark Fate is a worthy sequel of T2

It wrapped up a stale story and respected its predecessor’s finale

Skynet is dead, long live Skynet. Yes, there is no fate and Sarah was able to kill Skynet, but Skynet wasn’t a product of only its time nor an incident made by rogues: Skynet was a warning of what would become of people if they were too arrogant. It’s a tale of hybris. Men get too self-reliant and create something that will bring about their downfall: they become God, but by becoming God they commit a sin so big, they will need Jesus Christ (John Connor or James Cameron, if you will) to save themselves. I mean, if you don’t see the correlation between the Virgin Mary and Sarah Connor (Sarah is also the wife of Abraham, the quintessential mother in the Bible), y’all are blind (she gets inseminated by an “angel” sent to protect her, by her own son, ergo God). Terminator Dark Fate didn’t become woke, it did what T2 started to do, it de-christianized its message for a wider audience (Hollywood doesn’t pander to white christian americans anymore in 2019, go figure). In both movies, Sarah isn’t the Virgin Mary anymore, she’s the mentor, she takes action and she changes her own future and that of billions of people: she becomes the saviour. In the sequel to TDF she obviously was supposed to be the mentor to the new saviour. By killing John, it gave the story back to Sarah and a new hope for the future, taking out some of those harmful tropes where women are only good to “birth” the father of the resistance and not be them. John Connor was never a character you were going to be satisfied with, because he’s an ideal. You liked the teen version, because he was a rebel-ish punk who did everything he wanted, had a motorcycle and a pet robot. You were never going to like the gritty future version of a man destroyed by everything and also he was never supposed to become that. All of Sarah’s struggles the moment she found out she was pregnant were to protect her son from that future. Hadn’t they killed him off in 1999, he would’ve just been a 45 year old drunk - that’s where his character was going after defeating Skynet. 

It isn’t contraddictory to have another AI replace Skynet. 

Skynet and Legion are a cautionary tale, they are false gods, Frankenstein’s creature and the devil. It’s not repetitive, it’s not something that can be prevented in full, because humanity IS on that path. Humanity wants to play God and Sarah and John’s effort to stop Skynet was silent, it was secret (despite Sarah’s efforts to have people believe her, nobody did). Do you really think it would be so difficult to imagine another company, working on a similar project, at the same time in the late 90s - early 2000s? The only weak point is the implication that Legion would occupy terminators and the same tactics as Skynet, but I’m guessing if Sarah has been killing Terminators in the past for 30 years, Legion could’ve “read” something about it and developed itself to fit the past or got inspired, I don’t know. It’s not that far-fetched to have another AI use the same tactics. 

It introduced a new scary terminator, who is perfect for 2020

The Rev-9, like its predecessors, is an inflitration model (and that’s the only reason they cast a latin actor) who is built to hunt the same way the first two were, but it does it better: because 2020 is a scary time. The T-800 had to look on a phone book and kill three Sarah Connor before getting to the right one. This one? It needs a working internet connection. 

Also, to all of you saying that politics should stay out of movies, 

- the T-800 was an intimidating male hunting a defenseless woman

- the T-1000 was a cop hunting a supposed “crazy woman and criminal” 

- the Rev-9 is an immigration officer hunting a defenseless immigrant. 

not that hard to spot the similarities. 

It answered the question “what happens to terminators when they fulfill their purpose?” 

Arnie is old and that’s what made it so much more believable for me. 

People keep using this quote from The Terminator to say how terrible writing and what a huge plot hole it was to make the T-800 a dad:  “That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with...it doesn't feel pity of remorse or fear...and it absolutely will not stop.Ever. Until you are dead.”

Here’s a few reasons why their reasoning is biased:

First, off screen reason: this is the first movie, Cameron had no idea what would become of its own sequels. He hadn’t predicted Arnold would have such a following and I’m sure a re-programmed Terminator wasn’t in its plans. The first movie was about the horror of the terminator, we weren’t supposed to feel anything for it but fear, because its purpose was to scare us and nothing else. 

Second, in-character reason: Kyle Reese is a soldier in the future. He has only seen these machines kill and maim and knows that, just because this one has skin and hair and muscle on its endo-skeleton, it isn’t less machine than the ones he has been fighting all of his life. He only knows this one’s worse: because he has a single purpose. 

Third, non canon reason: Cameron from TSCC. Nobody was offended when she started to develop feelings for John in that series, why is everyone so offended by Carl now? Yeah. But it’s not canon, so let’s go to the last reason. 

Fourth, canon, on-screen, in-character reason: THE WHOLE EFFING MOVIE YOU LOVE SO MUCH. Terminator 2 is all about the differences between the T-1000 and the T-800. Yes, it was re-programmed, but it wasn’t programmed to get attached to John, to learn from him, to almost act as a surrogate father, to give him a sign of their relationship as he was lowered to his death. It has been established machines can feel. Even the Rev-9, who’s still fully on mission, has a personality, the same way Patrick’s was. They exist, therfore they are. They have their own thoughts, their own doubts and that means they can develop a conscience and get attached. Carl says he doesn’t love his family the way a human would and it shows, the same way the T-800 from T2 didn’t love John like a Kyle Reese would have. 

It gave us a new found family dynamic and used old tropes to tell new stories

Dani, Grace and Sarah have an amazing dynamic. Adding Carl to the mix was a bonus, because it created tension, but at the same time it gave us back that soft T-800 everyone of us fell in love with at 10-13 years old.

It did what TFA tried to do but better, imho. Star Wars fans were starved and when Disney made that movie, it still was considered a good producer of excellent content (now, not so much). TDF was produced by a variety of studios, because nobody wanted to take full responsibility after the disaster that was Genysis (and who could blame them?). Nobody praised TFA for its attempt to start a new saga, re-using ANH’s storyline with new characters and then build from there a new story, but it’s because they didn’t do it right. TFA doesn’t give you time to care about the characters, it’s a messy introduction of what could’ve been a very good trilogy if only they tried harder. 

TDF, in my opinion, did try harder. It gave us a simple hunter-hunted storyline, where all of the cast is in the same place at the same time. This way, you can care about the development of their relationships. You care about Grace and Dani, not because the movie told you to, but because you can see Grace’s affection and ammiration from the very first scenes and, by the end, you see the affection Dani has for this stranger who’s sole purpose it taking care of her, when she’s so used to be the one to take care of others (see the first few scenes with her brother and father). You care about Dani and Sarah, because the whole movie builds up to the mentor storyline without telling you. You care about Carl and Sarah, because of all the build up from past movies, but also because of the little things (”I’m never f* calling you Carl” to calling him just that a few scenes later or Sarah calling out the Rev-9 by telling it, “we’re not machines”). Everything it did, it did without telling us what to feel and that’s rare in a world where franchises are constantly telling you who you should like and why, instead of writing a good story and letting you figure it out by yourself. 

-----

It is not by far a perfect movie. Having 3 producing companies and six writers didn’t help, the same way it didn’t help that Tim Miller was basically ghost-directing for the ever-too-busy James Cameron. 

It could have been better in many ways: firstly, by using smaller scenes and a smaller budget and maybe a little less CGI and a little more practical effects. It was too ambitous and fans hadn’t yet forgiven this franchise for Genysis, because fans are butthurt babies who only want things to be they way they want them (I hated Genysis, don’t get me wrong, but I decided if this movie was going to be worth it once they said it wouldn’t be a sequel and watched a couple of trailers, it isn’t that hard). Another reason it bombed, beside the active boycotting, was the close to absent promotion except for a couple of lines. 

Anyway, this messy post is just to explain the reasoning why I believe it is a worthy sequel and, in my opinion, without the nostalgia goggles on and taking out of the equation the “originality” factor, I dare say it’s perfectly on par with The Terminator. 

[buzzdixonwriter]

Lena Horne, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump

Back in the Golden Era of Hollywood* white folks would point to Lena Horne as an example of how America wasn’t racist, America offered opportunities for everyone.

“Look at her!  She’s a movie star!  She appears in big movies!

“How could she do that if we were racists?”

Every society, no matter how stratified or hidebound, has space for a few socially approved outliers.

You can always afford one rigidly controlled exception to the rule, who can paradoxically serve as both a reassurance that there’s room for others and as an easily dismissed distraction should they arouse too much or the wrong kind of attention.

Lena Horne was an exceptionally beautiful singer-actress in a time and place where beautiful singe-actresses were the norm.  She appeared in dozens of major movies from big studios, and was well respected by her co-workers and peers.

And she was -- or rather the role she occupied in America was -- totally fake.

Ms Horne never had a substantial role or dramatic scene in any movie that did not feature a predominantly African-American cast.

The big budget musicals she appeared in, the ones aimed at mainstream audiences -- white audiences -- typically cast her as a specialty number:  In the middle of a big show within the movie, the camera would pan over to her standing in front of a curtain where she would belt out a show tune.

And white Americans would say to foreigners who criticized the US for its racism, “What about Lena Horne? Look at all the movies she appears in!”

She appeared as an appendix, a wholly superfluous addition whose presence or absence didn’t affect the film one whit.

Her musical numbers in mainstream (i.e., white) musicals were filmed and edited into the final picture so they could be cut out!

See, there were parts of the US that did not care for Ms Horne’s skin color one little bit.

And when her movies played there -- snip-snip.

Out she came.

That way no lily white audiences ever had to be offended that a n[FL play]er dared sully their lily white screen.

Why was she in there in the first place?

As a sop to the African-American community, to lure them into the theaters so they could have five minutes enjoying a performance by somebody who looked like them.

And to a lesser degree, as a sop to those few white Americans who, while not exactly “woke”, were at least stirring restlessly in their sleep.  “Hey, we can’t be all bad if we let a colored girl sing in a movie, can we?”

[SIDEBAR:  You wanna see what Ms Horne was capable of, track down Stormy Weather, an all African-American musical that I rank as the 3rd best movie musical ever made, trailing narrowly behind Singin’ In The Rain and The Band Wagon.]

Barack Obama was 21st century white America’s Lena Horne.

“Hey, how can we be racist if we elected a black president?” was white code for “We want you black people to shut up about the injustices you have suffered and continue to suffer.”

White America wanted Obama to be their Oreo:  Black on the outside but white on the inside.

They wanted him to champion white values and interests.

Not American values and interests.

White values and interests.

“Hey, we elected a black president…”

”…so we don’t have to do anything about the disproportionate justice meted out against African-Americans.”

“Hey, we elected a black president…”

”…so we don’t have to do anything about inner city communities that are still reeling from the effects of hundreds of years of dehumanization.”

“Hey, we elected a black president…”

”…so we don’t have to do anything about addressing the needs and concerns of people who have been deliberately and consciously excluded from the American dream.”

No, Obama was supposed to be the magic cure-all, the ultimate placebo that would get those pesky minorities to stop complaining so white folks could like their lives in ease and comfort and not have to worry about how non-whites were being treated.

Just stand up against that curtain, Barack, and sing…

But Barack Obama didn’t do that.

Barack Obama said, “Hey, we still have a problem if police accost an African-American in his own home and accuse him of being a burglar even when he can prove he lives there.”

And ya know what?

We do have a problem if that can happen.

Because in order to reach the relatively mild level of just getting falsely arrested by a police office who doesn’t believe your identity, we first have to undercut your basic rights as a human being and as a citizen of the United States.

We have to pre-judge you on the color of your skin, to assume you are intrinsically criminal and hence worthy only of suspicion and distrust.

We have to assume you are not educated enough to hold a job that would pay enough for you to buy the home we’re accusing you of burglarizing.

Many white people voted for Obama because they wanted to shut up minority critics.

And to their surprise and horror, Obama basically said, “No, they’ve got a point:  There still is a lot we need to work on to make this nation what is claims it wants to be.”

White people lost their shit over that.

Things got worse as the #BlackLivesMatter movement started.

White folks really lost their shit over that!

Most white people do not hate minorities…

…but they do fear them.

They fear minority crime, but not in the way one thinks.

White people are the biggest criminal threat to other white people.

Rather, they fear minorities because they ultimately fear a loss of status.

As I’ve noted previously, white identity defines itself by whom it excludes.

Barack Obama had one white American and one black Kenyan parent.

In the eyes of white America, that made him black.

And to many white Americans, it made him Kenyan as well.

White Americans define themselves by whom they exclude, never by whom they include.

Also as noted previously, despite its claims to be a classless society, America is very much a class-oriented society, one in which white people were guaranteed at the very least working class status by the simple fact non-whites were automatically regulated to lower class status.

When non-whites achieved skills and education that enabled them to climb out of their lower class status, they were only allowed to climb to higher status within their own communities.

An African-American lawyer might be able to plead a case in a white court, but only for a black client, never a white one.

Middle and working class whites feared losing their status; middle class whites feared slipping down to working class, working class feared becoming lower class.

Only if there was a built-in cushion, a concrete floor they were guaranteed they could not fall below, did whites feel comfortable.

(The astute reader will note this also applies to matters of gender, and orientation, and religion; we focus on race in this post because it’s the most obvious example, but it’s far from the only one.)

That floor was a ceiling for the minorities trapped below it, and the cracks that allowed some minorities to rise above it terrified whites who feared they’d slip through it.

Laws and customs and traditions and practices that kept minorities at arm’s length were the spackling that plugged those cracks.

Police and law enforcement and the judicial and penal systems were part of those plugs.

Minorities were treated more harshly, and penalized more severely, that whites who committed similar crimes.

Whites justified this by saying minorities were, by nature or nurture, more dangerous…more violent…more criminal than mainstream (read “white���) culture, and as such were inherently deserving of such treatment.

A white college student caught with a gram of cocaine would likely get A Very Strong Talking To by the judge and perhaps even have to perform some token community service, but a ghetto kid with a joint?  

Five to ten.

But as whites excluded more and more people from their group -- their own children and grandchildren from matings with non-whites -- the number and voice of minorities grew.

#BlackLivesMatter quite literally and explicitly means “Black lives matter as much as all other lives” but the white community couldn’t have that.

First they deliberately lied, and said #BlackLivesMatter meant “only black lives matter’.

I’ve said elsewhere that some people project so much they should really pay union dues to IATSE. #BlackLivesMatter is a response to the “only white lives matter” attitude found among too many people in law enforcement and the judicial system.

Second, whites claimed #BlackLivesMatter was anti-police (no, it only calls for the police to treat all persons with the same degree of courtesy and respect).

They framed that fake anti-police stance as a desire among the African-American community to wreak harm and havoc on innocent whites (though, as noted elsewhere, how innocent are you if you help maintain a system that harms others for your benefit?).

Nobody ever posted #AllLivesMatter or anything like it prior to #BlackLivesMatter making its first appearance, yet the sentiment found in #BlackLivesMatter can be traced back to the earliest calls for racial justice in this land.

Finally, whites promoted #BlueLivesMatter, a completely bogus straw man argument that places the lives and safety of the police above those of common citizens.

Whitey, please…

Being a police officer is a stressful and dangerous job -- though far from the most dangerous job in America (you wanna risk your life on a daily basis, become a roofer).

Being a police officer isn’t even among the top ten most dangerous jobs in America -- and most law enforcement on the job deaths are the result of traffic accidents (not surprising considering how much time the average officer spends on the road).

Being a police officer means one is entrusted with an awesome and terrible responsibility:  The authority to carry a lethal weapon and to use it against anyone the officer deems to be a clear and present danger to the lives of others.

That is absolutely an authority police officers should have…

…but not all police officers today are worthy of that responsibility.

There is nothing wrong or outrageous about African-American and other minority communities insisting the country’s police officers treat all people they encounter with the same courtesy and respect.

There will be people of all races and genders and ages who will respond to the police with defiance, perhaps up to and including armed resistance.

Fine, that’s why we give the police their authority to carry and use a weapon.

But they need to approach every situation based on what the person is doing at that moment and not whether whether they think or they fear the person may do them harm.

We are employing them -- in every sense of the word -- to put their lives on the line, and to risk their safety in order to preserve the public safety.

And most times, this means waiting until you know what the person you’re dealing with intends to do before acting yourself.

Frankly, if you’re inclined to shoot someone because you’re afraid they might do something, police work is not the career for you.

If unarmed, unresisting whites were treated as callously at so many unarmed and unresisting minorities are, if police gunned down a 12 year old white child without warning while playing in a public park the way they killed Tamir Rice, the white people in this country would go berserk and demand systemic changes top to bottom.

Which brings us to Donald Trump.

If Obama was the homeopathic placebo that white people thought would give them the “Get Out Of Racism FREE” card they longed to have, Trump was to be their purge to drive all the toxins they perceived out of the system and to restore them to their previous lost status.

Make American Great Again was their motto.

And yet when you asked them what that meant, it never referred to real measurable metrics such as changes in purchasing power, increases in productivity, spiraling health care costs, etc.

It always came back to re-establishing a mythical golden social order, where whites felt safe and secure in their (disguised) middle and working class status, and never feared dropping below the concrete floor that held so many others down.

Several years ago I wrote about the fast approaching year 2048.

That’s the year the census bureau projects the number of people identified as “white” Americans will drop to 49.99%.

The year the white majority vanishes…

…replaced by one large minority…

…but a minority nonetheless.

Knowing this day approaches, we will see more and more acting out by white people.

Uglier and uglier.

Sicker and sicker.

Deadlier and deadlier.

In a perverse way, we are lucky to have Trump now.

A competent racist demagogue could do far more damage.

He will taint the white political waters for at least a decade.

And that will shave white majority status ever narrower.

Remember, don’t feel sorry for whites; they are causing this by excluding their own descendants.

What they do to their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren will eventually be visited upon their own community.

The day they fear will finally arrive.

They won’t be anything special.

They’ll just be like everybody else.

E pluribus unum = “Out of the many, one.”

Maybe that will finally come about when there is no longer an arbitrary racial barrier to divide us by class.

 © Buzz Dixon

 * Well, post-WWII era Hollywood; the real golden era ran from the end of WWI to the start of WWII.

[waqasblog2]

"SEO Is Always Changing"... Or Is It?: Debunking the Myth and Getting Back to Basics - Moz

Recently I made the shift to freelancing full-time, and it’s led me to participate in a few online communities for entrepreneurs, freelancers, and small business owners. I've noticed a trend in the way many of them talk about SEO; specifically, the blocks they face in attempting to “do SEO” for their businesses. Again and again, the concept that "SEO is too hard to stay on top of... it’s always changing" was being stated as a major reason that people feel a) overwhelmed by SEO; b) intimidated by SEO; and c) uninformed about SEO.

And it’s not just non-SEOs who use this phrase. The concept of “the ever-changing landscape of SEO” is common within SEO circles as well. In fact, I’ve almost certainly used this phrase myself.

But is it actually true?

To answer that question, we have to separate the theory of search engine optimization from the various tactics which we as SEO professionals spend so much time debating and testing. The more that I work with smaller businesses and individuals, the clearer it becomes to me that although the technology is always evolving and developing, and tactics (particularly those that attempt to trick Google rather than follow their guidelines) do need to adapt fairly rapidly, there are certain fundamentals of SEO that change very little over time, and which a non-specialist can easily understand.

The unchanging fundamentals of SEO

Google’s algorithm is based on an academia-inspired model of categorization and citations, which utilizes keywords as a way to decipher the topic of a page, and links from other sites (known as “backlinks”) to determine the relative authority of that site. Their method and technology keeps getting more sophisticated over time, but the principles have remained the same.

So what are these basic principles?

It comes down to answering the following questions:

If your website is set up to help Google and other search engines answer these 4 questions, you will have covered the basic fundamentals of search engine optimization.

There is a lot more that you can do to optimize in all of these areas and beyond, but for businesses that are just starting out and/or on a tight budget, these are the baseline concepts you’ll need to know.

You could have the best content in the world, but it won’t drive any search traffic if the search engines can’t find it. This means that the crawlability of your site is one of the most important factors in ensuring a solid SEO foundation.

In order to find your content and rank it in the search results, a search engine needs to be able to:

This is primarily a technical task, although it is related to having a good site structure (the next core area). You may need to adapt the code, and/or use an SEO plugin if your site runs on Wordpress.

Site structure

In addition to making sure that your content is accessible and crawlable, it's also important to help search engines understand the hierarchy and relative importance of that content. It can be tempting to think that every page is equally important to rank, but failing to structure your site in a hierarchical way often dilutes the impact of your “money” pages. Instead, you should think about what the most important pages are, and structure the rest of your site around these.

When Google and other search engine crawlers visit a site, they attempt to navigate to the homepage; then click on every link. Googlebot assumes that the pages it sees the most are the most important pages. So when you can reach a page with a single click from the homepage, or when it is linked to on every page (for example, in a top or side navigation bar, or a site footer section), Googlebot will see those pages more, and will therefore consider them to be more important. For less important pages, you’ll still need to link to them from somewhere for search engines to be able to see them, but you don’t need to emphasize them quite as frequently or keep them as close to the homepage.

The main question to ask is: Can search engines tell what your most important pages are, just by looking at the structure of your website? Google’s goal is to to save users steps, so the easier you make it for them to find and prioritize your content, the more they’ll like it.

Once the content you create is accessible to crawlers, the next step is to make sure that you’re giving the search engines an accurate picture of what that content is about, to help them understand which search queries your pages would be relevant to. This is where keywords come into the mix.

We use keywords to tell the search engine what each page is about, so that they can rank our content for queries which are most relevant to our website. You might hear advice to use your keywords over and over again on a page in order to rank well. The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t always create a great experience for users, and over time Google has stopped ranking pages which it perceives as being a poor user experience.

Instead, what Google is looking for in terms of keyword usage is that you:

You should only ever target one primary keyword (or phrase) per page. You can include “secondary” keywords, which are related to the primary keyword directly (think category vs subcategory). I sometimes see people attempting to target too many topics with a single page, in an effort to widen the net. But it is better to separate these out so that there's a different page for each different angle on the topic.

The easiest way to think about this is in physical terms. Search engines’ methods are roughly based on the concept of library card catalogs, and so we can imagine that Google is categorizing pages in a similar way to a library using the Dewey decimal system to categorize books. You might have a book categorized as Romance, subcategory Gothic Romance; but you wouldn’t be able to categorize it as Romance and also Horror, even though it might be related to both topics. You can’t have the same physical book on 2 different shelves in 2 different sections of the library. Keyword targeting works the same way: 1 primary topic per page.

For more in-depth guides to keyword research and keyword targeting, check out the following posts:

Another longstanding ranking factor is the number of links from other sites to your content, known as backlinks.

It’s not enough for you to say that you’re the expert in something, if no one else sees it that way. If you were looking for a new doctor, you wouldn’t just go with the guy who says “I’m the world’s best doctor.” But if a trusted friend told you that they loved their doctor and that they thought you’d like her too, you’d almost certainly make an appointment.

When other websites link to your site, it helps to answer the question: “Do other people see you as a trustworthy resource?” Google wants to provide correct and complete information to people’s queries. The more trusted your content is by others, the more that indicates the value of that information and your authority as an expert.

When Google looks at a site’s backlinks, they are effectively doing the same thing that humans do when they read reviews and testimonials to decide which product to buy, which movie to see, or which restaurant to go to for dinner. If you haven’t worked with a product or business, other people’s reviews point you to what’s good and what’s not. In Google’s case, a link from another site serves as a vote of confidence for your content.

That being said, not all backlinks are treated equally when it comes to boosting your site’s rankings. They are weighted differently according to how Google perceives the quality and authority of the site that’s doing the linking. This can feel a little confusing, but when you think about it in the context of a recommendation, it becomes a lot easier to understand whether the backlinks your site is collecting are useful or not. After all, think about the last time you saw a movie. How did you choose what to see? Maybe you checked well-known critics’ reviews, checked Rotten Tomatoes, asked friends’ opinions, looked at Netflix’s suggestions list, or saw acquaintances posting about the film on social media.

When it comes to making a decision, who do you trust? As humans, we tend to use an (often unconscious) hierarchy of trust:

To bring this back to SEO, you can think about backlinks as the SEO version of reviews. And the same hierarchy comes into play.

If a site collects too many links from poor-quality sites, it could look like those links were bought, rather than "earned" recommendations (similar to businesses paying people to write positive reviews). Google views the buying of links as a dishonest practice, and a way of gaming their system, and therefore if they believe that you are doing this intentionally it may trigger a penalty. Even if they don’t cause a penalty, you won’t gain any real value from poor quality links, so they’re certainly not something to aim for. Because of this, some people become very risk-averse about backlinks, even the ones that came to them naturally. But as long as you are getting links from other trustworthy sources, and these high quality links make up a substantially higher percentage of your total, having a handful of lower quality sites linking to you shouldn’t prevent you from benefiting from the high quality ones.

For more in-depth guides to backlinks, check out the following posts:

Does anything about SEO actually change?

If SEO is really this simple, why do people talk about how it changes all the time? This is where we have to separate the theory of SEO from the tactics we use as SEO professionals to grow traffic and optimize for better rankings.

The fundamentals that we’ve covered here — crawlability, keywords, backlinks, and site structure — are the theory of SEO. But when it comes to actually making it work, you need to use tactics to optimize these areas. And this is where we see a lot of changes happening on a regular basis, because Google and the other search engines are constantly tweaking the way the algorithm understands and utilizes information from those four main areas in determining how a site’s content should rank on a results page.

The important thing to know is that, although the tactics which people use will change all the time, the goal for the search engine is always the same: to provide searchers with the information they need, as quickly and easily as possible. That means that whatever tactics and strategies you choose to pursue, the important thing is that they enable you to optimize for your main keywords, structure your site clearly, keep your site accessible, and get more backlinks from more sites, while still keeping the quality of the site and the backlinks high.

The quality test (EAT)

Because Google’s goal is to provide high-quality results, the changes that they make to the algorithm are designed to improve their ability to identify the highest quality content possible. Therefore, when tactics stop working (or worse, backfire and incur penalties), it is usually related to the fact that these tactics didn’t create high-quality outputs.

Like the fundamentals of SEO theory which we’ve already covered, the criteria that Google uses to determine whether a website or page is good quality haven’t changed all that much since the beginning. They’ve just gotten better at enforcing them. This means that you can use these criteria as a “sniff test” when considering whether a tactic is likely to be a sustainable approach long-term.

Google themselves refer to these criteria in their Search Quality Rating Guidelines with the acronym EAT, which stands for:

In order to be viewed as high-quality content (on your own site) or a high-quality link (from another site to your site), the content needs to tick at least one of these boxes.

Does this content answer a question people have? Is it a *good* answer? Do you have a more in-depth degree of knowledge about this topic than most people?

This is why you will see people talk about Google penalizing “thin” content — that just refers to content which isn’t really worth having on its own page, because it doesn’t provide any real value to the reader.

Are you someone who is respected and cited by others who know something about this topic?

This is where the value of backlinks can come in. One way to demonstrate that you are an authority on a topic is if Google sees a lot of other reputable sources referring to your content as a source or resource.

Are you a reputable person or business? Can you be trusted to take good care of your users and their information?

Because trustworthiness is a factor in determining a site’s quality, Google has compiled a list of indicators which might mean a site is untrustworthy or spammy. These include things like a high proportion of ads to regular content, behavior that forces or manipulates users into taking actions they didn’t want to take, hiding some content and only showing it to search engines to manipulate rankings, not using a secure platform to take payment information, etc.

It’s always the same end goal

Yes, SEO can be technical, and yes, it can change rapidly. But at the end of the day, what doesn’t change is the end goal. Google and the other search engines make money through advertising, and in order to get more users to see (and click on) their ads, they have to provide a great user experience. Therefore, their goal is always going to be to give the searchers the best information they can, as easily as they can, so that people will keep using their service.

As long as you understand this, the theory of SEO is pretty straightforward. It’s just about making it easy for Google to answer these questions:

This is why the fundamentals have changed so little, despite the fact that the industry, technology and tactics have transformed rapidly over time.

A brief caveat

My goal with this post is not to provide step-by-step instruction in how to “do SEO,” but rather to demystify the basic theory for those who find the topic too overwhelming to know where to start, or who believe that it’s too complicated to understand without years of study. With this goal in mind, I am intentionally taking a simplified and high-level perspective. This is not to dismiss the importance of an SEO expert in driving strategy and continuing to develop and maximize value from the search channel. My hope is that those business owners and entrepreneurs who currently feel overwhelmed by this topic can gain a better grasp on the way SEO works, and a greater confidence and ease in approaching their search strategy going forward.

I have provided a few in-depth resources for each of the key areas — but you will likely want to hire a specialist or consultant to assist with analysis and implementation (certainly if you want to develop your search strategy beyond simply the “table stakes” as Rand calls it, you will need a more nuanced understanding of the topic than I can provide in a single blog post).

At the end of the day, the ideas behind SEO are actually pretty simple — it’s the execution that can be more complex or simply time-consuming. That’s why it’s important to understand that theory — so that you can be more informed if and when you do decide to partner with someone who is offering that expertise. As long as you understand the basic concepts and end goal, you’ll be able to go into that process with confidence. Good luck!

This content was originally published here.

[ramajmedia]

25 Best Movies on Hulu Right Now (September 2019) | ScreenRant

Hulu has a lot of great movies - here are the 25 best films on the streaming service. In an age of options, less feels like more. While Netflix has an ever-expanding library, Hulu offers a more focused collection of great movies. Because volume isn’t the objective, Hulu succeeds in curating a batch of excellent films.

There are the iconic classics like The Matrix and Seven, the arthouse darlings like Sorry to Bother You and Let the Right One In, and the pure entertainment gems like The Fifth Element and Shrek. Hulu keeps it simple, and offers something for everybody. Here are the 25 best movies that you can watch on Hulu right now.

Related: The 25 Best Films on Netflix Right Now

Before we start, first a disclaimer. modern streaming libraries are like carousels, always moving and always changing. The films in this list are available on Hulu at the time of writing. We’ll be updating this top 25 list frequently, so keep an eye out for Hulu’s latest and greatest offerings. Also, the list isn't ranked from worst to best, so a lower number is not meant to denote higher quality. It's just a list of 25 great movies.

Last updated: September 5, 2019

25 Detroit

While it slipped through awards season without much hype, Detroit remains one of 2017’s best films. Rotten Tomatoes awarded it an 84% for its “gut-wrenching dramatization of a tragic chapter” in American history. Director Kathryn Bigelow tackles the 1967 incident in Motor City with aplomb, deftly guiding a sprawling cast (led by John Boyega and Will Poulter) through a maze of tension, bigotry, and survival. Detroit streams exclusively on Hulu.

24 The Fifth Element

One of the most unique sci-fi films of its decade, director Luc Besson's 1997 hit The Fifth Element served to launch the career of future Resident Evil franchise lead Milla Jovovich into the stratosphere, and is now on Hulu. Bruce Willis stars as Korben Dallas, a 23rd century cab driver who ends up unwillingly thrust into a quest to save the Earth when Leeloo (Jovovich) jumps off into a building into his flying vehicle. The two are opposed by Jean-Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg (Gary Oldman), a brash villain working on behalf of a great cosmic evil.

23 Seven

One of the most respected crime thrillers of the 1990s, Seven has style to spare, and was one of the films to first establish David Fincher as a director be reckoned with. Seven stars Brad Pitt as brash young detective David Mills, who partners up with soon to retire detective William Somerset (Morgan Freeman) in order to try and catch a serial killer who bases his murders on the seven deadly sins. Hauling in over $300 million at the box office on a $33 million budget, Seven was both a critical and commercial smash, and deserves to be revisited on Hulu.

Read More: 15 Awesome Facts You Didn't Know About Seven

22 The Matrix

One of the biggest pop culture phenomenons of its time, 1999's The Matrix put sibling directors The Wachowskis on the map. The Matrix's quite brilliant premise is that the world and everyone in it is in fact a computer simulation powered by the very humans that dwell there, after a catastrophic war between mankind and machines. One day, Thomas Anderson aka Neo (Keanu Reeves), a mild-mannered computer programmer by day and hacker by night, is woken up to the sad reality of his situation by Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss), leaders of a human resistance effort seeking to expose The Matrix to the public. Sequels The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions are also available on Hulu.

21 Basic Instinct

While 1992's Basic Instinct is most remembered for a particularly scandalous scene involving Sharon Stone, the movie as a whole is quite the enthralling neo-noir suspense thriller. Directed by Paul Verhoeven, Basic Instinct stars Michael Douglas as detective Nick Curran, who makes the mistake of becoming romantically involved with murder suspect Catherine Tramell (Stone). Well, depending on one's definition of romance. One of the biggest hits of the 1990s, Basic Instinct made over $350 million, and is a Hulu pick definitely aimed at adults.

20 Lethal Weapon

Directed by 1980s mainstay Richard Donner, 1987's Lethal Weapon still stands as one of the quintessential examples of how to do a "buddy cop" action movie right. Mel Gibson stars as Martin Riggs, a suicidal sergeant with a short fuse and nothing to lose. Riggs gets partnered up with by the book lawman Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover), leading to a slowly blossoming friendship, and one of film's most beloved duos. Lethal Weapon would spawn three successful sequels, and a TV reboot that aired on FOX. All are currently available on Hulu too.

Read More: Where Are They Now? The Cast Of Lethal Weapon

19 An American Werewolf in London

There are many iconic movies about vampires, ghosts, witches, and demons, but unfortunately, the werewolf tends to come up short in that department, starring in more stinkers than hits. Arguably the best werewolf movie of all time is 1981's An American Werewolf in London, directed by John Landis, and now on Hulu. Boasting amazing practical creature effects that hold up today, the film tells the story of David Kessler (David Naughton), an American backpacking in Europe that ends up surviving a werewolf attack that kills his best friend. Unfortunately, it's not too long before David realizes he's now cursed to kill during the full moon.

18 Ocean's Eleven

While director Steven Soderbergh might be better known for his award-worthy dramas, sometimes he stops being quite so serious, and creates the laid back chill of 2001's Ocean's Eleven. A critical and commercial ($450 million worldwide) hit, Ocean's Eleven manages to be both a thrilling heist caper and an amusing bit of ensemble fun, perfect for Hulu subscribers. Said ensemble boasts some huge names, including George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, and Bernie Mac.

17 Hellraiser

Any dedicated horror fan has surely had their soul torn apart multiple times by Hellraiser's Pinhead (Doug Bradley) by this point. Director Clive Barker (adapting his own novella) crafted one of the most enduring tales of terror to come out of the 1980s, spawning one of the longest-running horror franchises out there as well. Hellraiser may only have a 68% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but it's a certified classic of the genre, and needs to be watched by anyone who enjoys a good fright flick. Direct sequel Hellbound: Hellraiser II is also part of Hulu's roster.

Read More: The Real Life Inspirations Behind 11 Horror Movie Icons

16 Frank

To some, Michael Fassbender is a young Magneto. To others, he’s a two-time Academy Award nominee. To a select few, he’s the gonzo pop musician and eponymous hero in Frank, the offbeat artist who became more famous for his oversized paper-mâché mask than his music. Directed by Lenny Abrahamson (Room), Frank earned a 92% Rotten Tomatoes score and remains a cult classic to adventurous Hulu viewers looking for a changeup in their visual diet.

15 Annihilation

One of Screen Rant's favorite movies of 2018, Annihilation is a visionary sci-fi film written and directed by Alex Garland, who previously made his directing debut with the equally arresting Ex Machina. Natalie Portman stars as Lena, one of the only survivors of an expedition into a realm called "The Shimmer," which serves as home to places and creatures beyond anything known to the natural world. Sporting an 89% RT score, Annihilation just arrived on Hulu, and also stars Jennifer Jason Leigh, Gina Rodriguez, Tessa Thompson, and Oscar Isaac.

14 Training Day

Directed by Antoine Fuqua, Training Day features Denzel Washington in arguably his greatest role, alongside an equally game performance by Ethan Hawke. Washingston stars as Alonzo Harris, a highly decorated but also highly corrupt narcotics officer, tasked with showing new recruit Jake Hoyt (Hawke) the ropes. Alonzo is a villain through and through, but damn is he fun to watch at work. Surprisingly, Training Day only holds a 72% on RT, despite earning Washington an Oscar and Hawke an Oscar nomination. Regardless of the lower rating, Training Day is still one of the best films on Hulu.

Read More: Ethan Hawke is (Sort Of) Right About Superhero Movies

13 Spaceballs

Made back in the days when director Mel Brooks could seemingly do no wrong, Spaceballs is a hilarious parody of the original Star Wars trilogy. While it wasn't quite a critical hit, Spaceballs has earned itself a gigantic cult following in the decades since its release, and features terrific comedic performances from greats like Bill Pullman, John Candy, Rick Moranis, Joan Rivers, and even Brooks himself as the wise sage called Yogurt. Stream it on Hulu and get ready to laugh.

12 A Quiet Place

While John Krasinski might always be best known for playing Jim on iconic sitcom The Office, 2018's acclaimed sci-fi/horror film A Quiet Place demonstrated that he has just as much talent behind the camera. Directed, co-written by, and starring Krasinski, A Quiet Place centers on a family living in the aftermath of an apocalyptic alien invasion. The invading creatures are deadly, and hunt by sound, meaning that the Abbott clan has to spend most of their life in silence. Unfortunately, things eventually go wrong, and the monsters come calling. Krasinkski's real-life wife Emily Blunt co-stars in this prime Hulu pick.

11 Unbreakable

While 2019's theatrical arrival of director M. Night Shyamalan's latest film Glass didn't exactly set the world on fire, that doesn't diminish the greatness of its predecessors, the first being 2000's Unbreakable, recently added to Hulu. After surviving a deadly train crash without a scratch, mild-mannered security guard and family man David Dunn (Bruce Willis) comes to discover that he possesses powers beyond normal men, and that he's destined for greatness as a superhero. Guiding him down this path is Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), a mysterious man with secrets of his own.

Read More: M. Night Shyamalan's Films Ranked From Absolute Worst To Best (Including Glass)

10 Punch-Drunk Love

The fourth feature to be directed by perennial critical darling Paul Thomas Anderson, 2002's Punch-Drunk Love offered a showcase for comedy icon Adam Sandler's then-unknown dramatic chops as Barry Egan, a desperately lonely man with severe rage issues. Sadly, said chops have only been glimpsed a few times since, with Sandler mostly content to stick to his usual wheelhouse of slapstick comedies like Grown Ups. Still fans of Sandler the actor will always have this critically acclaimed film to remember him by, and stream on Hulu.

9 Airplane

Continually considered one of the funniest films in history, 1980 spoof comedy Airplane throws joke after joke at the audience with reckless abandon, and while all of them don't necessarily hit for everyone, most of them likely will. Granted, Airplane does contain some material likely to be viewed as a bit problematic by current standards, but when seen through the lens of when it was made, it's clear these jokes weren't intended to be malicious. Airplane might be best known for taking Leslie Nielsen, then primarily a dramatic actor, and turning him into a comedic force to be reckoned with. Anyone who hasn't experienced Airplane needs to take this flight while it's on Hulu.

8 Shutter Island

Directed by Martin Scorsese and starring his modern muse Leonardo DiCaprio, 2010's Shutter Island centers on U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels, who's sent to investigate a mysterious disappearance at a mental hospital on the titular island. Unfortunately for Teddy, nothing is what it seems, and the mystery threatens to swallow him whole. The star-studded cast also includes Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Max von Sydow, and Michelle Williams. Those looking for a thriller designed to keep them guessing should definitely stream Shutter Island on Hulu.

Read More: 10 Amazing Martin Scorsese Movies Everyone Forgets About

7 Shrek

The film that put Dreamworks Animation on the map, 2001's Shrek stars Mike Myers as the titular ogre, a creature gruff on the outside but caring on the inside. Despite not wanting to do anything but hang out in his swamp, Shrek is compelled to go on a quest to rescue Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) by the villainous Lord Farquad (John Lithgow). By his side is Donkey (Eddie Murphy), a fast-talking animal who can't help annoying Shrek with his constant chatter. Shrek spawned a franchise of three sequels and multiple specials, and is worth checking out on Hulu.

6 Rosemary's Baby

Although director Roman Polanski is quite rightfully disgraced nowadays for being a convicted rapist, but that doesn't mean his classic films are suddenly any less great. One of the best is 1968's Rosemary's Baby, a deservedly revered entry into the horror canon. Mia Farrow stars as the titular character, a young woman who sees her life get more and more unraveled after she and her husband move into a mysterious New York City apartment building. Before long, she begins to suspect that every single person in her orbit might be involved in a demonic conspiracy. Those who haven't seen it owe it to themselves to meet Rosemary's Baby on Hulu.

5 Vice

A biopic about former U.S. vice president Dick Cheney was always going to be a controversial, divisive prospect, especially one directed by Adam McKay with a sharp satirical edge. In the end, 2018's Vice ended up earning mostly praise from critics, and multiple Oscar nominations, including one for Christian Bale's eerily accurate performance as Cheney. Bale famously put on lots of weight for the role, and is almost unrecognizable at a glance. Vice's all-star cast also includes Amy Adams, Steve Carell, Sam Rockwell, and more. Vice is worth a stream on Hulu, especially during these current politically-charged times.

Read More: Christian Bale’s 10 Greatest Roles, Ranked

4 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

The Star Trek multimedia franchise has so far produced 13 feature films, but arguably the most iconic of those came early on, with 1982's Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, now on Hulu. For better or worse, The Wrath of Khan changed gears from the metaphysical, exploratory adventure that was Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and did its best to turn Star Trek into more of a space action vehicle. Thankfully, it succeeded with most, and William Shatner's Captain Kirk yelling KHAN! at Ricardo Montalban's titular villain has become the stuff of legend.

3 Sorry to Bother You

One of the most uniquely creative movies of 2018, director Boots Riley's debut is a thought-provoking look at American race relations, framed through a dystopian comedic lens. Sorry to Bother You stars Lakeith Stanfield as Cassius "Cash" Green, who gets a job as a telemarketer, only to discover that putting on his "white voice" is what gets the money rolling in. Sorry to Bother You is a film not really suited to being summed up in a paragraph, but its 93% Rotten Tomatoes score kind of speaks for itself. Check it out on Hulu.

2 Heathers

A darker than dark comedy, Heathers was written by Daniel Waters and directed by Michael Lehmann, and sports a huge cult following, which is sure to only get bigger via Hulu. Winona Ryder stars as Veronica Sawyer, a high school student who runs afoul of former friends the Heathers, a trio of rich, popular girls that rule teen society with an iron fist. After being wronged by them, Veronica makes the mistake of teaming up with outcast bad boy J.D. (Christian Slater) in order to get revenge. Sadly, J.D.'s idea of revenge is straight up murdering his enemies.

1 Let the Right One In

Released in a decade where vampire cinema was dominated by the sparkly Twilight, director Tomas Alfredson's Swedish hit Let the Right One In was exactly what the classic creature needed to remind audiences that despite their affliction, vampire movies don't have to suck. Lina Leandersson stars as Eli, an ageless vampire with the appearance of a child, and Kare Hedebrant plays Oskar, the bullied young boy she enters into an unexpectedly sweet relationship with. The film was later adapted stateside by Matt Reeves, with Chloe Grace Moretz in the Eli role. That version is sadly not available via Hulu.

Next: 10 Best Shows You Didn’t Know Were On Hulu

source https://screenrant.com/hulu-best-movies/

[sinbugs]

mePerformance

Main content

Are smartphones the future of filmmaking?

20 February 2019

Steven Soderbergh’s basketball drama High Flying Bird is the latest feature film to be shot entirely on an iPhone. As hand-held technology grows ever more powerful, TOM CHURCHILL asks if we're seeing the start of a seismic shift in the movie industry.

Steven Soderbergh uses an iPhone on the set of High Flying Bird, with and Bill Duke and André Holland | Photo © Netflix

High Flying Bird, a micro-budget drama about a sports agent taking on the establishment, isn’t the first movie to be shot entirely on smartphones. It’s not even the first Steven Soderbergh movie to be shot entirely on smartphones - his 2018 psychological horror Unsane was made the same way.

But it does mark a significant step towards mainstream acceptance for a practice that has, until recently, been seen as a gimmick that’s unlikely to challenge the conventions of Hollywood.

It's one of the most liberating experiences that I’ve ever had as a filmmaker

Steven Soderbergh

Soderbergh shot to fame in 1989 with Sex, Lies and Videotape and since then has juggled blockbuster hits (the Ocean's Eleven series, Magic Mike) with more experimental fare (Contagion, Side Effects) and TV drama (The Knick, The Girlfriend Experience).

As a longstanding champion of digital photography, in the past two years he has become the highest-profile advocate of smartphones for serious filmmaking.

“I think this is the future,” he declared at Sundance last year while promoting Unsane, which he shot in two weeks for just $1.5 million using the iPhone 7 Plus. “I look at this as potentially one of the most liberating experiences that I’ve ever had as a filmmaker.”

For High Flying Bird, released through Netflix to critical acclaim earlier this month, the budget was upped to $2m - still minuscule by Hollywood standards, where blockbuster Black Panther weighed in at $200m and even a 'low-budget' film like The Favourite cost $15m - and Soderbergh pushed the iPhone even further, using wide-angle lenses and capturing lengthy hand-held tracking shots.

Discussing the film on the Bill Simmons Podcast in January, Soderbergh said: “If I had a traditional camera package […] the film I think would not have been any better. It might have been worse. It certainly would have taken longer.” He’s not wrong about the last point. A tweet from Soderbergh’s ‘secret’ account reveals the first cut was completed less than three hours after filming wrapped.

Claire Foy, Juno Temple and Joshua Leonard in Unsane | Photo: AF archive/Alamy Stock Photo

After the release of Apple’s iPhone 4 - the first model to shoot HD video - in 2010, tech-savvy, budget-conscious filmmakers were quick to tap into its potential. Thanks to dedicated add-on lenses and apps such as FiLMiC Pro - as well as each new iteration of the iPhone improving on the last - these tiny devices were increasingly capable of rivalling large cameras that cost far more.

The iPhone itself does have a certain aesthetic that was unnerving

Joshua Leonard on Unsane

And while current technological limitations mean there is still a particular 'look' associated with smartphone footage - they perform less well in low-light conditions, and tend to put the entire frame into unnaturally sharp focus - this can be used to creative effect.

Actor Joshua Leonard, who starred in Unsane alongside Claire Foy, told The Ringer: “The iPhone itself does have a certain aesthetic that was unnerving. The profound depth of field that you get in every shot, where every single piece of the frame is in focus, made for an uncomfortable experience in a way that I think served [Unsane] quite well.

“To me, the technology hasn’t advanced to the point where an iPhone movie won’t look like an iPhone movie. I think anybody using the iPhone technology right now will be integrating that aesthetic that the phone gives into their movie.”

For Soderbergh, the advantages outweigh any limitations. “What’s great about the iPhone is I can put it anywhere,” he says. “Literally, I can Velcro it to a ceiling, I can do whatever I want, and that’s very liberating.”

Sean Baker filming Mickey O’Hagan and Kitana Kiki Rodriguez with the iPhone 5S on the set of Tangerine, 2015 | Photo: TCD/Prod.DB/Alamy Stock Photo

Sean Baker, whose acclaimed iPhone-shot film Tangerine, about a transgender prostitute hunting her cheating boyfriend-pimp, marked a major breakthrough for the technology, has also highlighted its advantages over traditional cameras.

To me it’s more about using this device to catch candid moments

Sean Baker

He told Fast Company: “While [the iPhone] has helped me become more mobile, no pun intended - running around, finding tight areas and different ways of moving the camera - to me it’s more about using this device to catch candid moments. That’s the biggest thing. Because nobody takes the iPhone as seriously as a regular camera, so they have lowered inhibitions.”

While we're not yet at the point where an iPhone-shot movie isn't a newsworthy story in itself, the technology is rapidly closing the gap to conventional setups, and it seems inevitable that phone footage will be used more and more in the coming years - particularly in documentaries, where its unobtrusive size and ease of use offer obvious advantages.

But as well as allowing established directors to experiment with new techniques and work with lower budgets, perhaps the most important contribution of the smartphone is the way it has opened up the art of filmmaking to anyone with a phone, a laptop and an imagination. As Soderbergh says: “You really don’t need much more than what’s in your pocket and some software, and off you go.”

High Flying Bird is available on Netflix now

[brokehorrorfan]

Blu-ray Review: The Phantasm Collection

It was long thought impossible for a box set of the Phantasm films to be released in the US due to the rights being controlled by different entities, but Well Go USA has made it happen. Going above and beyond beautiful high-definition transfers of all five films, the six-disc set also contains an exhaustive amount of special features, both new and archival, plus a book and a poster.

Phantasm's most memorable elements - a sinister undertaker who sometimes takes the form of a beautiful woman, flying metallic spheres that suck the blood out of victims’ heads, cloaked dwarfs seemingly plucked out of Star Wars, yellow blood that resembles cheese sauce - sound more like scenes from a nightmare than a movie. In many ways, that’s exactly what the 1979 film is: a hypnagogic fever dream put on screen.

Not only was it a remarkable achievement for an independent film upon its initial release, but Phantasm has also aged surprisingly well after nearly 40 years. Written and directed by Don Coscarelli (The Beastmaster, Bubba Ho-Tep), the surreal plot centers around a boy, Mike Pearson (A. Michael Baldwin), his older brother-turned-guardian, Jody (Bill Thornbury), and their friendly neighborhood ice cream man, Reggie (Reggie Bannister), as they investigate a mysterious mortician known as The Tall Man (Angus Scrimm).

It’s rare to see a scary scene set in the bright sunlight, but that famous slow motion shot of The Tall Man walking through the ice cream truck's fog is positively chilling. Paul Pepperman’s practical effects are realistic enough to induce cringing, from the gory demise of the sphere’s first victim to the lifelike severed fingers. Fred Myrow and Malcolm Seagrave’s oft-repeated theme music never loses its power. The amateur acting is a tad hammy in spots, but the movie also features some truly great character moments, none better than Jody and Reggie jamming on their guitars together.

Phantasm has received a flawless 4K restoration and 5.1 surround sound mix from the original elements by Bad Robot, under the supervision of Coscarelli and noted fan J.J. Abrams (Star Wars: The Force Awakens). The movie has always had a unique, grainy texture that added to the dreamlike quality. Thankfully, the high-definition remaster retains the organic look while bringing new clarity and vividness to the picture.

Well Go updates last year's Phantasm Blu-ray with a new audio commentary by Coscarelli, co-producer Paul Pepperman, and visual consultant Roberto Quezada. Other special features include a commentary by Coscarelli, Baldwin, Thornbury, and Scrimm; a segment from the show Graveyard Carz in which Coscarelli and Baldwin inspect a tribute to the Phantasm ‘Cuda; a vintage TV interview with Coscarelli and Scrimm; deleted scenes; a plethora of behind-the-scenes home movies (some featuring commentary by Coscarelli and Bannister); interview outtakes; footage of Scrimm from a panel at a 1989 Fangoria convention; a Fangoria commercial starring Scrimm from 1988; a still gallery; TV and radio spots; and two trailers.

1988's Phantasm II begins the franchise's tradition of sequels picking up immediately where the previous installment left off. In this case, Coscarelli shows us what Reggie is up to downstairs while Mike is attacked by the Tall Man upstairs. It then cuts to six years later, when Mike (now played by James Le Gros, Point Break) is released from the mental institution where he's been held since the events of the first film.

Mike and Reggie hit the road together on the hunt for the Tall Man. They evade hits traps along the way, in addition to developing respective love interests. Mike dreams of Liz (Paula Irvine), a girl who also lives in fear of The Tall Man. Reggie, ever the lady's man, works his magic on a hitchhiker named Alchemy (Samantha Phillips). He also constructs a quad-barrel shotgun, which joins his 'Cuda as a signature of the character and the franchise.

Coscarelli intended to have Baldwin reprise his role as Mike alongside the other returning cast members, but Universal Pictures, who produced the film, insisted a working actor be cast in the lead role. Le Gros does a fine job in the inherited part, but the transition feels jarring when watching the franchise back-to-back. The surreal elements are slightly subdued, likely at the studio's behest as well, but they are still very present in the form of the nightmarish visions that plague Mike.

The trade-off was worthwhile, however, as Phantasm II has the largest budget of the series with $3 million. All the elements that made the first Phantasm so successful are present, but the bigger budget affords a larger scale with more gore and action. Gooey practical effects and rubber monsters - designed by Mark Shostrom (Evil Dead II, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors) with the assistance of fellow special effects greats Greg Nicotero and Robert Kurtzman - give the picture a distinct '80s horror feel.

Unlike the other discs in the box set, Phantasm II is licensed from Scream Factory, so the company's Collector's Edition release from 2013 is repackaged. There aren't any new special features, but the disc was already stacked: a 46-minute making-of featurette with the cast and crew; a featurette on the special effects; an audio commentary with Coscarelli, Bannister, and Scrimm; deleted scenes; alternate and extended workprint scenes; behind-the-scenes footage from the set; an educational short film produced by Encyclopedia Britannica starring a young Scrimm as Abraham Lincoln; three still galleries; TV spots; and trailers.

1994's Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead was made for about half the budget of the previous installment, which allowed Coscarelli to have more creative freedom. As a result, the surreal elements are back in the forefront. More noteworthy, Baldwin returns to his rightful role as Mike. The transition between actors is pulled off seamlessly with a clever switcheroo in editing between a recap of the previous film and current events.

While Mike was the star of the show last time around, Reggie takes the lead on this one. Previously playing more of a sidekick, he gleefully assumes the role of the action hero in spite of his humble beginnings as a bald, middle-aged ice cream man. Mike is largely absent for the film's midsection as we follow Reggie's adventures to save him and defeat the Tall Man. The focus on Reggie results in more comedic relief, which borders between fun and out of place.

En route, Reggie befriends Tim (Kevin Connors), a child sidekick who mirrors Mike in the original film, and Rocky (Gloria Lynne Henry), a badass, nunchuk-wielding army chick. Jody also makes his return to the story, trapped in one of the Tall Man's spheres. Speaking of which, the sphere effects were perfected by visual effects creator Kerry Prior in this film; they look better here than any other Phantasm movie.

The budget may have been lower, but not debilitatingly so. Shostrom was brought back for more creative practical effects, which include zombie-like creatures on the hunt for Reggie and the gang. Phantasm III also boasts one of the wildest car stunts ever put on celluloid, as fearless stuntman Bob Ivy launches a pink hearse off a pipe ramp at a high speed, hurling the vehicle much farther than anticipated. It's quite a sight to behold, particularly in high definition.

New special features for Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead include: a 48-minute making-of featurette with the cast and crew; a featurette dedicated to Ivy's aforementioned death-defying stunt; a commentary by Coscarelli and editor Norman Buckley; and a new compilation of behind-the-scenes footage from the set. Archival extras include: a charming commentary by Baldwin and Scrimm; an earlier, shorter collection of on-set footage; a deleted scene; a still gallery; a radio spot; and the trailer.

1998's Phantasm IV: Oblivion returns the franchise to its ambitious independent roots. It was long thought to be the end of the series - and, although it pales in comparison to earlier entries, it offers a gratifying conclusion. Due to the decreased budget, Coscarelli relies on the performances to deliver an engaging story rather than the spectacle of action and special effects - although there are some of those as well, including KNB EFX helping out on a couple notable effects.

As you might expect, the film is a bit more esoteric than the prior installments. The spirit of Jody urges Reggie to find Mike and help him on his quest to stop the Tall Man once and for all. The old friends embark on an interdimensional journey, expanding the series' rich mythology even further. Insight is given on the Tall Man's human backstory, which had been previously unexplored.

What makes Oblivion particularly fascinating is that it repurposes unused footage from the original Phantasm, working it in as flashbacks and visions. It might come off as a cheap gimmick in most films, but it feels genuine here, given that all the actors are still involved, not to mention the franchise's tendency for thinking outside the box. It helps that the footage is quite interesting, like the scene in which Mike and Jody hang the Tall Man.

New special features for Phantasm IV: Oblivion include: a 47-minute making-of featurette with the cast and crew; a compilation of behind-the-scenes footage from the set; and a gallery of Justin Zaharczuk's concept art. Previously existing extras include: a commentary with Coscarelli, Bannister, and Scrimm; behind-the-scenes footage (which is essentially a truncated cut of the new version); a gallery of behind-the-scenes stills; and two trailers.

2016's Phantasm: Ravager is the only Phantasm film not to be directed by Coscarelli. He passes the torch to David Hartman, though he worked closely as a co-writer and producer. It marks the live-action feature debut of Hartman, who has a long history in animation. He also serves as cinematographer, editor and visual effects artist on the film, among other duties. Although he has crafted many memorable moments throughout the years, Coscarelli’s direction has always been fairly straightforward, so the changing of the guard isn’t particularly noticeable.

The plot shifts between three timelines centering around Reggie, and neither the viewer nor the character knows for sure which is real. In one, he’s the same Reggie that fans know and love; on the road searching for his old friend, Mike. In another, he’s in a nursing home suffering from early onset dementia. In the third, he’s been in a comatose state since the events of Oblivion, and now he’s awakened to find that The Tall Man rules the earth.

It’s very much Reggie’s movie, and Bannister’s enthusiasm to revisit his iconic role translates on screen. Baldwin also plays a big role as Mike, and Thornbury joins in later as Jody. The Tall Man pops up intermittently, per usual, but he has meatier dialogue than in past films, and Scrimm nails it. Kathy Lester briefly reprises her role the Lady in Lavender from the original, and Henry makes her triumphant return as Rocky in a post-credit scene. Stephen Jutras is immediately likable as Chunk, a little person with a big personality.

Ravager feels like a fan film at times, but Hartman’s appreciation for the franchise is apparent. It suffers from its prolonged production that began as a web series with no clear end game in sight. Its seams are particularly apparent in the early portion of the film, which plays out like a series of vignettes. Thankfully, the story largely coalesces before the credits roll. Along the way, the story ties up some loose ends left by past installments while introducing new ideas, characters, and questions.

There are a few solid practical effects, but the film relies too heavily on digital effects. Several are decent for a low budget movie, while others are distractingly bad. CGI is the only way to pull off several of the ambitious concepts - like the giant spheres - but the amateurish effects resemble something found in a Syfy movie. Although imperfect, Ravager ultimately brings the storied franchise to a satisfying close, complete with everything that made the original Phantasm so memorable.

Well Go obviously held back a few extras from last year's physical release of the film to include in the box set version: a fun 50-minute montage of footage, photos, visual effects tests, and artwork used in the making of the film; video interviews with Baldwin, Lester, and Jutras; and the end credit montage sans credits. The previous extras are also present: an informative commentary by Hartman and Coscarelli; a behind-the-scenes featurette; three deleted scenes (including one with a giant dwarf played by Friday the 13th's Derek Mears) with optional commentary; an amusing collection of bloopers and outtakes; and the teaser and trailer.

A bonus disc collects even more supplementary materials: Phantasmagoria, a 2005 feature-length documentary about the franchise directed by Jake West (Doghouse); Phantasm & You, Hartman's satirical recap of the franchise styled after 1950s public service announcements; full panel discussions from Flashback Weekend Chicago 2008, Flashback Weekend Chicago 2014, and Fantastic Fest 2016; a live performance of an original song about the Lady in Lavender by Lester, whose sultry voice suits her character; a tour of Phantam's shooting locations hosted by Bannister; Phantasm Genesis, a behind-the-scenes look at some of the effects in Oblivion; and Phandom, an 18-mnute piece dedicated to the franchise's rabid fanbase.

And that's not all! The set also comes with Phantasm Compendium, a 120-page book written by Ben Wan, which chronicles the history and impact of the franchise. It features exclusive interviews with cast and crew members, accompanied by behind-the-scenes photos. Lastly, the package contains a 21x27 reversible poster, with The Dude Designs' new box set artwork on one side and Aaron Lea's stunning Phantasm: Remastered poster on the other.

Arrow Videos is releasing its own Phantasm box set in the UK, which may have superior packaging (it comes in a sphere replica), but it's impossible to compete with Well Go's exhaustive amount of special features. It's evident upon diving into them how passionate Coscarelli and the actors remain about the material and the fans after all these years.

Phantasm is easily one of the most fascinating franchises to marathon through. Each film could have served as an ending to the series, yet the subsequent sequel always picks up right were the previous one left off. Not only is it a treat to watch the same characters and cast members grow and mature as the mythology expands, but Coscarelli's creative force continuously propels the story in unexpected directions.

The Phantasm Collection is available now via Well Go USA.

[aion-rsa]

Shadow in the Cloud Review: Chloë Grace Moretz Faces World War II Gremlins

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

During the Second World War, the Army Air Force Corps referred to B-17 bombers as “Flying Fortresses.” Such words conjure an image of invincibility and safety. But for the men and women who occupied that space it was anything but comforting. In its best moments, Roseanne Liang’s Shadow in the Cloud remembers this. As a new wild horror movie made possible in part by the New Zealand Film Commission, this chiller at 20,000 feet is never scarier than when Chloë Grace Moretz’s officer is strapped into a lower ball turret, with only a view straight down to keep her company. Well, the view and a gremlin.

Yes, there is a gremlin in Shadow in the Cloud, and like the claustrophobic verticality of the movie’s setting, its presence is always felt like a breath on the back of the neck during a stormy flight. Granted this makes for a more effective first act than second (there is no third). Yet when the film turns into an all-out creature feature with more pulp than an orange grove, there’s still enjoyment to be found for horror fans who always wanted to know what would happen in one of these old school gremlin stories if the monster got through the glass.

Set in 1943, the film opens as a mystery. Officer Maude Garrett (Moretz) has classified orders from the top. They demand she be added last minute to a B-17 ferrying across the Pacific Theater from New Zealand to American Samoa, along with a locked box that must be kept shut at all costs. As a member of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF), Garrett is not supposed to be on this potential combat mission, but it’s technically just a transport flight—one with the most unlikely of crews assembled from American, British, and New Zealand forces. Nevertheless, the men aboard all have one thing in common: condescending skepticism that a woman should be on the flight. They also share the bad habit of talking about her like it’s last call at the pub before they realize she can also use their interphone system.

Garrett is of course ready for the rampant chauvinism and misogyny. She’s also more than prepared for the surprise sight of Japanese fighters locking onto their slow four-engine bomber. What she could never anticipate though is the gremlin she first spies as a shadow on the wing—or how its interference drives the rest of the crew to start doubting her.

One of the most satisfying aspects of Shadow in the Cloud is how it acts as a reminder of the women who served in air forces during World War II. Yes, the WAAF was a real division of the Royal Air Force that is often forgotten in movies and pop culture, just as the U.S. Army allowed women to pilot planes across the Atlantic in non-combat missions as members of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP). Shadow in the Cloud so thoroughly underlines these facts that there’s even a welcome montage of women who served during the ending credits.

… But make no mistake, this is not a historical drama; Shadow in the Cloud aims to be nothing more or less than a B-movie giddy about its own schlockiness. Even before the gremlin, the heightened reality is visible by the way military personnel break ranks and communicate, or in the film’s desire to live inside of a gun turret at the bottom of a B-17.

The first 40 minutes or so are the movie’s strongest, with Moretz getting to dominate almost every frame of the film, save for her view into the stormy clouds and the steep drop. The movie occasionally shows the rest of the crew, but only in flickering images of how they appear in Garrett’s mind as she listens to their banter and, eventually, interrogational questions when things go wrong. It’s a solid showcase for Moretz, and also a nice compact thriller that lands closer to The Twilight Zone’s “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet” than Joe Dante’s Gremlins. As with William Shatner in that TV classic, Moretz’s heroine knows the all-male crew will not believe what she’s seeing on the other side of the glass, but she’ll still have to walk them through the supernatural if they hope to survive the night.

Shadow in the Cloud is gleeful about its pop culture heritage, as teased by a fun cartoon before the opening titles, which harkens back to those old Bugs Bunny cartoons in all but name. However, it’s when the movie fully embraces its gonzo silliness that it may lose some viewers. The film’s visibly low-budget, evocative monster effects during a thunderstorm play less pleasingly when it’s garish CGI in the bright light of day, and it all leads to a full throttle ending so grandiose that it borders on self-parody.

Yet Liang never once shows an interest in approaching anything that could be mistaken for subtle. As a first-time feature director working from her own screenplay—which she reworked extensively after the project distanced itself from original writer Max Landis, who was accused of sex misconduct—the director shows a romance for 1980s genre thrills. From its 1980s-inspired synthesized score by Mahuia Bridgman-Cooper to an emphasis on practical creature effects, this is a bananas throwback that skips a slow middle section to head straight into a wild finale which takes place around (and outside) the plane.

For some it may be too bumpy a landing, but for other genre aficionados, it’s a hell of an adrenaline rush they’ll walk away from with a grin.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Shadow in the Cloud premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on Sept. 10.

The post Shadow in the Cloud Review: Chloë Grace Moretz Faces World War II Gremlins appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2FMWQOA

[mrmichaelchadler]

MOMA's To Save and Project Festival: Cane River, Crime Wave, Pharos of Chaos, The Shipwrecker

MOMA’s annual To Save and Project festival programs newly preserved and restored films from all around the world. These films reflect a variety of diverse cultures and traditions, as well as myriad global industry practices, which frequently go unnoticed by Western audiences. MOMA’s storied dedication to exhibiting these frequently rare, often unseen works from talented filmmakers across the globe is worthy of celebration and acclaim. Simply put, it’s a necessary service to expand the mind and broaden the palette of the American cinephile.

The 16th edition of To Save and Project featured a tribute to director Barbet Schroeder’s documentary work, new restorations of early Ernst Lubitsch and F.W. Murnau films, as well a smattering of selections from the British Film Institute and the Biograph Collection at MOMA. The festival also presented a history of British animation, films by experimental artist Edward Owens, and restorations of mid-century films, including Curtis Harrington’s “Night Tide,” starring a young Dennis Hooper, and Michael Anderson’s “The Quiller Memorandum,” written by Harold Pinter and starring George Segal, Alec Guinness, and Max von Sydow.

As a delegate from RogerEbert.com, I spent the past month exploring the vast lineup of To Save and Project and picked a selection of films worthy of further analysis and discussion. Here is the first of two dispatches from the festival.

“Cane River”

In 1982, Horace Jenkins’ first and only feature “Cane River” premiered in New Orleans, Louisiana. Featuring an all-black cast and sporting an all-black crew, “Cane River” traces the burgeoning romance between two young lovers caught within a complex web of family ties and Creole history. The film was set to premiere in New York in February of 1983, and even caught the attention of actor and comedian Richard Pryor, who had seen “Cane River” and actively sought to have it distributed by Warner Bros. Unfortunately, Duplain Rhodes, the executive producer of “Cane River,” rejected Pryor’s deal outright, believing he would lose control of his investment if he handed the film to Hollywood. In December 1982, Jenkins suffered a fatal heart attack. “Cane River” subsequently went unreleased and was effectively lost for over three decades.

In 2013, Sandra Schulberg and her organization IndieCollect, which seeks to preserve American independent film, uncovered a negative of “Cane River” in the vaults of DuArt Film and Video in Manhattan. The Academy Film Archive struck a new 35mm print of the film from a 90-minute negative. Later, IndieCollect, with the generous help of the Roger & Chaz Ebert Foundation, mastered a 4K digital copy. “Cane River” was screened for the first time in 36 years at the New Orleans Film Festival in October 2018, and it finally had its New York premiere at MOMA on January 18th, 2019. 

The preservation struggles of “Cane River” are far too common in film history, but Jenkins’ debut feature itself remains a rare beast: an independent drama about black romance that openly contends with intraracial strife. Peter Metoyer (Richard Romain) receives a hero’s welcome upon landing in his rural hometown of Cane River, Louisiana, and it’s not just because he was a college football star all set to go pro. He’s also a scion of a prominent Cane River Creole family who were prosperous landowners that once collaborated with the Confederacy during the Civil War. When Peter visits an estate owned by his ancestors, a local tourist attraction in his town, he meets tour guide Maria Mathis (Tommye Myrick) and they quickly fall for each other. They bond over horse rides, history books, and long walks in Cane River, but their relationship faces a sizable stumbling block. Historically speaking, the Cane River Creoles don’t mix with the dark-skinned, lower-middle-class blacks in the area, like Maria or her family. In fact, the estate where Maria works once housed slaves owned by the Metoyer family.

Peter tells Maria that his family’s problematic history doesn’t reflect upon his personal beliefs or feelings, but he stills harbors pride in his heritage. During his home tour, Peter discovers that a white businessman bought his grandmother’s home under shady terms and seeks out a lawyer to return it to his family. He reads extensively about his family and has no interest in throwing their name under the bus. Meanwhile, Maria might feel awkward about seeing Peter socially given his pedigree, but that’s nothing compared to her mother (Carol Sutton), who believes that Cane River Creoles are no better than an average white racist. Maria chafes against her family’s traditions and longs to finally go to college in New Orleans. To her, Cane River represents limitations and constraints. To Peter, it still retains some halcyon nostalgia and a place for him to flex his creative impulses.

Peter and Maria’s debates about colorism and the weighty shadows of their respective families provide “Cane River” with powerful historical foundation, one that offers a compelling racial twist on a “Romeo and Juliet”-style romance. Jenkins’ film also works beautifully as a travelogue of Louisiana. “Cane River” cinematographer Gideon Manasseh shoots Cane River’s lush landscapes and New Orleans’ bustling city streets with transparent passion for the lived-in details of the areas. Jenkins allows the environments to reflect his subjects’ nuanced, often contradictory feelings about their shared history of the land itself. Most importantly, however, “Cane River” is a fantastic artifact of early-’80s American independent/low-budget cinema. If Jenkins had lived, it’s not too difficult to imagine him garnering critical accolades, even some commercial success, during such a fertile period for indie filmmaking. But even though “Cane River” was lost for decades, its raw subject matter echoes in films of the present day. Barry Jenkins’ debut film “Medicine for Melancholy,” another two-hander love story implicated by race and region, in particular feels like a direct descendant of Horace Jenkins’ orphan feature.

"Pharos of Chaos"

Director Andre de Toth’s best-known work is still the 1953 horror film “House of Wax,” which was the first color 3-D feature to be released by a major American studio and one of the biggest hits of its year. Given that de Toth lost an eye at an early age and thus could not experience 3-D effects, it’s both impressive that he directed the film at all and ironic that he’s associated with it. Still, de Toth is a B-movie man who had a successful Hollywood career in the ’40s and ’50s. This year’s To Save and Project featured a rare screening of de Toth’s “Crime Wave” in a brand-new 35mm print. MOMA advertised the event on their website as “the last chance” one might ever see the film in such a format.

Though “Crime Wave” sports a standard noir premise—two gang members force a reformed ex-con (Gene Nelson) to help them commit a robbery all while a hard-nosed detective (Sterling Hayden) follows their trail—its strengths lie in execution. Crane Wilbur’s script immerses and disorients, especially during first-act introductions, capturing all subjects amidst states of personal or physical disarray. The sublime nighttime photography, courtesy of cinematographer Bert Glennon (who worked with such luminaries as John Ford and Joseph von Sternberg), foregrounds the seediness of not just abandoned streets, but also gas stations and veterinary hospitals. Plus, “Crime Wave” allows its two leads a solid showcase: Nelson sells the plight of a man who knows too well that the American justice system doesn’t hand out second chances without strings attached, and Hayden flexes bitter and aggressive right up until sympathy for an enemy’s moral conviction enters into his heart. The two work within and occasionally transcend their respective archetypes.

MOMA presented “Crime Wave” as a prelude to two self-portraits of Sterling Hayden, both made near the end of his life. The first is “Pharos of Chaos,” directed by Wolf-Eckart Bühler and Manfred Blank, a character study of Hayden as he reflects upon his storied life—his wartime years spent helping the Yugoslav partisans combat fascism during WWII; his famed HUAC testimony and his subsequent lifelong regret for caving to the demands of McCarthy and the FBI; the open disdain and contempt he holds towards the height of his Hollywood career; his late years spent sailing and writing. The second is “The Shipwrecker,” also directed by Wolf-Eckart Bühler, a companion piece to “Pharos of Chaos” and an off-kilter adaptation of Hayden’s memoir, which focuses almost exclusively on the HUAC chapter of his life.

While both films fascinate based on subject matter alone, “Pharos of Chaos” is the more interesting of the two if only because it’s the one that actually features Hayden. It’s nothing short of a delight to watch the aged actor eloquently and drunkenly ramble about his past aboard his own canal barge. Hayden’s alcoholism and hash habit might have amplified his contempt towards himself, but he also goes to great lengths to convey that he’s earned his self-loathing. By his own admission, Hayden committed an unforgivable moral failure in a public forum, which afforded him a successful Hollywood career that he believes to be fraudulent. His post-’60s career was largely defined by sincere regret over his actions. “Pharos of Chaos” showcases how Hayden balances that regret with whimsy and curiosity. 

from All Content http://bit.ly/2WR1pf1

[theconservativebrief]

Ever since 1999’s The Blair Witch Project sent early internet denizens scouring the web to figure out if its spooky, shocking story was actually true, we can’t seem to get enough of found-footage movies.

In the 19 years since Blair Witch’s theatrical run, 18 found-footage horror movies have made $15 million or more at the box office — which constitutes a financial success, considering how cheaply most of these movies are made. (See: The Gallows, which made almost $24 million on a reported production budget of $100,000.) That’s about one hit per year. As niche tastes go, found footage has a nice track record.

The subgenre has also seen its share of genuine blockbusters. Blair Witch and 2008’s Cloverfield became bonafide cultural phenomenons during their days. Two of the Paranormal Activity movies topped $100 million at the US box office and another grossed $80 million, huge hits for three consecutive Halloweens.

As streaming takes over, the market has continued to grow for the kind of low-budget, easy wins that found-footage films can provide, and the barrier to entry for filmmakers looking to try their hand at some quick-and-dirty handheld scares is lower than ever. Searching “found footage” on Amazon Video yielded 222 results.

So what is it about found footage? In an age when you can pull a phone out of your pocket and record movie-quality video, I think there’s something deeply authentic and compelling about a movie that mimics something we ourselves might shoot. It’s escapism in its rawest, most intimate form. Pair it with the primal emotions of horror, the genre that’s home to most of these films, and you have a reliable formula.

Personally, I love found footage, and think it doesn’t get enough credit for how flexible it is: It’s a subgenre that can work for everything from claustrophobic chamber dramas to fantastical epics like Cloverfield and Troll Hunter. I myself often find the cheaper ones, in their rawness, more compelling and more legitimately unsettling than the found-footage movies Hollywood produces. The amateurish aesthetic only heightens their effect.

But as any fan knows, the quality variance is high, and not just because seemingly anybody can make a found-footage movie. You’re as likely to find a dud as something memorable — and you can never be sure which you’re going to get, given these films rarely attract top-tier stars or directors that might serve as some kind of proxy for quality.

However, in the defining paradox of found footage, that can also be their strength. Strip away the big names and movie magic gloss, and you’re left with a couple actors, a camera, and a story — and when the right combination clicks, it can result in an effectively terrifying experience.

This fall, I jumped headlong into the world of shaky cams and sudden pans to something creeping around the corner. I’d seen the big hits and the cultural touchstones — now I wanted to burrow deep into the found-footage catalogs on Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Shudder. (If you haven’t seen The Blair Witch Project, it is on you, my friend, to correct that immediately. I think it holds up. Just don’t expect the scariest movie you’ve ever seen.)

I found some great horror flicks. I also saw some duds. So, as a Halloween treat, and in an effort to uncover some hidden gems, I’m pointing you in the right direction with this list of some of the best found-footage horror available on streaming. And I ranked them, because why not.

(Sadly, I cannot recommend that you watch [REC], the 2007 Spanish entry that’s probably the masterpiece of the subgenre. The only version available to stream is a very bad English dub and I would not wish that on anyone.)

The details: USA, 2014. Directed by John Erick Dowdle. Available with subscription on Netflix.

[embedded content]

Why watch: Sometimes, all a found-footage film needs is the right setting. This descent into hell (played here by the Paris catacombs) is visually mesmerizing, which makes this movie worth your time even if the scares can be a bit inert and the drama a bit hackneyed. Plus, Perdita Weeks is compulsively watchable as Scarlett, the alchemy student who brings a documentary crew and ex-boyfriend in tow, and the hellish final act is appropriately bizarre and discomfiting.

This is one of those found-footage movies with an impressive sense of scale: You’ve taken a real journey by the final frame.

Try if you like: The Descent. With its narrow passageways and suffocating sense of claustrophobia, the comparison is inevitable.

The details: USA, 2013. Directed by Karl Mueller. Available with subscription on Shudder.

[embedded content]

Why watch: It’s best to go into Mr. Jones knowing as little as possible. Part of the joy of Halloween horror movie season is stumbling upon titles you would never otherwise look for and seeing where they take you. That mindset can only help when watching Mr. Jones, which takes likable characters and distinctly creepy imagery and applies them to a story that becomes quite the head trip. To say much more would spoil the fun.

Try if you like: Unbreakable — but, again, I’m reluctant to elaborate. Let’s just say found footage has a special ability to, in its practical limitations, force filmmakers to be more imaginative.

The details: Canada, 2012. Directed by Christopher MacBride. Available for digital rental on Amazon and iTunes.

[embedded content]

Why watch: This one benefits from a great set-up: What if the man raving about the end of the world outside of Congress was right?

I’m a sucker for any found-footage story that’s framed as “everything went wrong for this documentary crew.” There isn’t much more here than a killer premise and a memorably creepy finale, but that is one beauty of the found-footage genre: These movies often don’t need much more than that to be successful.

Try if you like: Rosemary’s Baby. The occultism is omnipresent, and the movie is less interested in scaring the pants off of you than in constantly nudging you about how near to your own reality this whole scenario seems to be.

The details: USA, 2016. Directed by Phil Guidry, Simon Herbert, and David Whelan. Available with subscription on Amazon Prime.

[embedded content]

Why watch: The most horrifying thing in Savageland might be the dialogue uttered by some of the white, openly racist side characters who populate its mockumentary pastiche.

Say this for the filmmakers: They’re willing to let those characters be as nasty as need be. They don’t pull any punches in this gory tale set in Arizona near the US-Mexican border. Through a narrative not unlike that of Making a Murderer, we learn the story of a Mexican immigrant who might have been wrongly accused of a truly gruesome crime.

This is another small film, made on a self-evidently low budget, that has a big imagination and is bedeviled by tough, urgent political questions.

Try if you like: Get Out. It’s certainly not the scariest film on this list, but, like Jordan Peele’s masterwork, this movie is more interested in making you uncomfortable than making you jump out of your seat.

The details: USA, 2016. Directed by Nigel Bach. Available with subscription on Amazon Prime.

[embedded content]

Why watch: This is a genuine one-man show that might leave you wondering if Nigel Bach just took $1,000 and rented a random house for a weekend. Bach (who receives every notable credit here) plays Tom, a man who thinks he’s buying a house that will make for a quick flip and a tidy profit. But then the furniture starts to move on its own.

As found-footage set-ups go, Tom’s reasons for filming are left a little … vague. But you don’t come to these movies looking for iron-clad logic. And even with no budget to speak of, Bach’s film still got to me, thanks in part to an unforgettable final shot, which has been a staple of the genre since Blair Witch.

Try if you like: The Blair Witch Project. The setting is totally different, but Bad Ben marries a do-it-yourself-attitude with an impeccably realized atmosphere in a way that echoes found footage’s breakout movie.

The details: Canada, 2011. Directed by the Vicious Brothers. Available with subscription on Shudder.

[embedded content]

Why watch: Finally, a little self-awareness: Colin Minihan and Stuart Ortiz, a.k.a. filmmaking duo the Vicious Brothers, effectively spoof those ghost hunter shows that were briefly a hot trend, while still building toward a genuinely suspenseful second half.

A key element of many found-footage films set in one place (which is a lot of them) is geography. Each haunted house or hospital has rooms or hallways — or, in the case of Grave Encounters, tunnels — that start to gain a personality and help build expectations that skilled directors like the Vicious Brothers can then exploit as the audience grows a little too comfortable.

Try if you like: Scream. It’s not taking itself too seriously but there are still solid scares to be found.

The details: USA, 2011. Directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman. Available for digital rent on Amazon and iTunes.

[embedded content]

Why watch: Looking back, it’s honestly impressive that the Paranormal Activity series squeezed three worthwhile movies out of its premise. There was so much potential for this franchise to get stale — and it did, eventually — but it took longer than you’d think.

The mythology really took over as the series went along, and the third film’s exploration of the story’s universe, while turning back the clock a little bit, gives it a fresh feeling and a gloriously gonzo finale. The 1980s, with their flickering, ever-skipping videotapes, are a great period for the found-footage aesthetic.

Try if you like: Any Paranormal Activity movie. This is a series you can jump around in, so if you’ve only seen the first or gave up after the second, this is the franchise at its best.

The details: USA, 2015. Directed by Stephen Cognetti. Available with subscription on Amazon Prime.

[embedded content]

Why watch: Critical to any found-footage movie is the set-up. Why are they filming? Why do they keep filming? Why, for the love of God, do they keep filming?

As set-ups go, Hell House LLC’s is pretty great: A crew of drifters put on haunted houses for money in random towns over the Halloween season. They like to record themselves for the memories and to document their talents in scaring their guests. There’s an implied history that adds some heft to the characters and their relationships.

But as the movie goes on, the haunters become the haunted. Their latest house has a bloody backstory, and, as we learn at the very beginning, something is going to go horribly wrong on Halloween night. But what?

This movie is extremely seasonal in the best way. There are also clowns. I’m not going to say anything else.

Try if you like: It. With its strong sense of place and some seriously scary clowns, Hell House LLC is a nice compendium to last year’s huge horror hit.

The details: USA, 2013. Directed by Blair Erickson. Available for digital rental on Amazon and iTunes.

[embedded content]

Why watch: Your definition of “found footage” might vary, but much of The Banshee Chapter is archival video or in-universe uncovered footage placed within a mockumentary framework. It counts.

It’s also, scare-for-scare, the most frightening film I’ve seen this year. Director Blair Erickson just knows how to craft a terrifying moment, and the film’s backstory of real CIA programs adds to the disquieting ambiance. It’s unsettling throughout, and you’ll yelp at least once.

Try if you like: District 9. Especially in its formatting, the film is reminiscent of that movie’s blend of found footage and conventional moviemaking.

The details: USA, 2017. Directed by Patrick Brice. Available with subscription on Netflix.

[embedded content]

Why watch: The Creep films constitute the only found-footage series that doubles as an enthralling, inexplicable character study. Mark Duplass stars as our killer, Aaron, who is … reflective on his murdering ways. He likes to share. He likes to talk. He even hires random people off the internet just so they can film him talking — for starters, anyway.

The first Creep, released in 2014, is good, but the second, which brings Desiree Akhavan’s Sara in as Duplass’s sparring partner, is even bolder. It’s sort of funny, highly uncomfortable, and totally terrifying in a few sequences.

Try if you like: The Silence of the Lambs. Duplass’s unforgettable performance, combined with his complicated relationship with Sara, a worthy foe, reminds me a lot of the Hannibal Lecter-Clarice Starling classic.

The details: Japan, 2005. Directed by Kôji Shiraishi. Available with subscription on Shudder.

[embedded content]

Why watch: This is the mother of all horror mockumentaries. Whereas many other found-footage movies go small, Noroi runs in the opposite direction, with a speaking cast of well over 25 characters and a nearly two-hour runtime.

The film follows paranormal researcher Masafumi Kobayashi, who embarks on a hellish odyssey while investigating an odd woman, her mysterious son, and some strange deaths. Along the way, we get a taste of everything: Japanese variety shows, classic talking heads, presumably recovered footage from Kobayashi’s own files. It gets very meta when actress Marika Matsumoto shows up playing a possibly possessed version of herself.

Noroi is more interested in building a searing sense of dread than conventional scares, but images from its final reel will still burn into your brain. Shiraishi is maybe the world’s only found-footage auteur (he’s made at least four others over the past decade or so), and Noroi shows all the things he can do with the form.

Try if you like: The Ring. Maybe that’s a bit obvious. But J-horror does have its own distinct mood, so your feelings about the most successful American crossover are probably a good indicator of how much you’ll enjoy Noroi.

The details: USA, 2014. Directed by Adam Robitel. Available for digital rental on YouTube.

[embedded content]

Why watch: A possession movie that starts as a drama about Alzheimer’s disease, The Taking of Deborah Logan offers such a singularly brilliant premise it’s a little baffling that nobody thought of it before.

For this subgenre, The Taking of Deborah Logan stands out as an impressive artistic achievement. It is first and foremost a painfully relatable family melodrama, with affecting performances and fully realized characters. But the terror comes hard and often in a second half that goes off the rails in the best way, when our millennial documentary crew discovers they are filming a very different story than they originally imagined.

Try if you like: Hereditary. Jill Larson and her remarkably malleable physique dominate this movie much the same way Toni Collette owned 2018’s best horror film. Both films successfully plumb issues of mental health and psychology with a demonic motif.

The details: UK, 2013. Directed by Elliot Goldner. Available for digital rental on Amazon and iTunes.

[embedded content]

Why watch: What makes Final Prayer work so well are the relationships: a semi-disgraced ex-priest is joined by a goofy, agnostic cameraman and a mildly authoritarian church official to investigate a demon-haunted church in rural England. The performances are strong and the characters actually get the time to talk about life and reveal themselves a little.

The trio sets up cameras in their house and the church and they wear headsets almost constantly because they’ve been charged by the Vatican with figuring out whether there is any evidence for this alleged haunting. It adds a little authenticity, providing an answer to that ever-present found footage question of why they’re filming and why they keep filming. You get agonizingly still, quiet scenes while waiting for something to move in the sanctuary (a la Paranormal Activity) and more kinetic action when we switch to the characters’ point-of-view.

It’s creepy throughout, without leaning on jump scares. Then, at the end, the story goes in a wildly unexpected direction.

Try if you like: The Exorcist. Final Prayer’s horror incorporates a lot of Catholicism, in a good and thoughtful way.

Original Source -> 13 found-footage horror movies actually worth watching this Halloween

via The Conservative Brief

[kayskasmoviereviews]

Movie Review Catch-Up: April - May 2018

Isle of Dogs - It doesn’t come as a surprise, but Wes Anderson has made another wonderful masterpiece of a film. This film returns to the stop-motion animation style of Fantastic Mr. Fox, but feels like a significant progression in the continuing development of Anderson’s overall aesthetic. Yes, many of his trademark visual and dramatic elements are present, but there are also elements of worldbuilding and action like we’ve never seen from him before. There’s no film quite like this one, and it’s a genuine thrill to watch.

Toni Erdmann - A thoroughly excellent German comedy drama that is one of the sharper recent character studies. The film unfolds over three hours and veers between purposefully tedious scenes of realistic business dialogue and bouts of outrageous humor, all in service of a worthwhile philosophical reflection. There are comedic scenes here that just keep escalating far past what you might expect, and the effect is amazing.

A Quiet Place - A perfect example of what I would consider an excellent movie, though not a great one. The movie is a smart, well-crafted genre exercise that uses tons of cinematic devices to wring as much suspense and dread as possible out of its clever horror premise. It doesn’t have anything particularly original or profound to say, but darn if it isn’t a great ride while you’re on it. 

Blade of the Immortal - This is the 100th film by the Japanese director Takashi Miike, though I think it’s only like the 5th or so that I’ve seen myself. If you want to know what a live-action anime would look like, here’s your film. It’s a silly, over-the-top, exceedingly violent samurai adventure. Sometimes you just want to see bad guys mowed down with swords by the dozens.

Cold in July - A weird, twisty, not-fully-plausible-but-that’s-ok thriller. I have a soft spot for grimy, violent, lower-budget American thrillers, and this one fit the bill. It starts off seeming to go in one direction, and doing so very effectively, before completely changing track. I’m not sure the ultimate result would withstand much scrutiny, but it’s worth checking out for the sheer unpredictability of the story.

Secretary - A fascinating psychological study of a couple of truly fucked-up people. Some of the movie’s recent marketing has tried to position it as a precursor to 50 Shades of Grey because both are about sadomasochism and happen to feature characters named Mr. Grey, but the comparison is misleading. This film is not meant to be particularly titillating; it is far less concerned with its protagonist’s body than her mind.

All Is Lost - This is a solid movie, though I wasn’t quite as entranced with it as some critics were. Robert Redford plays a man whose boat starts to sink out in the middle of the ocean, and who spends the entire movie doing what he has to to survive. The movie is very methodical and single-minded in its approach, but I’m not sure what I really take away from it other than a desire never to go out on the ocean. It’s a bit like reading Robinson Crusoe in the way its attention to literal, practical detail kind of overwhelms anything else.

College - A decently funny little movie, though far from Buster Keaton’s best. It’s basically an excuse for Keaton to do a bunch of sports-themed stunts. It’s worth a look if you’re already a Keaton fan, but if not, definitely start with The General.

Table 19 - This movie suffers from a serious case of not knowing what it wants to be. The story was written by the Duplass brothers, and you can get glimpses of the heartfelt, emotionally earnest little indie film they wanted to make; but the other elements brought in by co-writer and director Jeffrey Blitz, as well as by the casting of a bunch of major comedy names, are clearly reaching for more of a broad comedy. The movie would have been better off had it committed to either approach, but trying to split the difference ultimately means it wasn’t as funny or as emotionally affecting as it meant to be. However, one of my former students has a line right at the end of the movie, which was pretty neat.

The Call of Cthulhu - I admire the general approach of this film - adapting the classic H.P. Lovecraft story as a deliberately old-fashioned black-and-white silent film - but the result ultimately doesn’t work that well. The story doesn’t actually lend itself to film adaptation particularly well, and it was hard to get invested in the film.

Ready Player One - This fun little bit of escapism is actually an improvement on the book that inspired it, likely because Steven Spielberg is a better filmmaker than Ernest Cline is a writer. There are a lot of really fun sequences and ideas here, particularly one that pays homage to one of Spielberg’s main inspirations in a really technically fascinating way. It’s minor Spielberg, sure, and there are definitely some flaws; but even here his fluency with the camera and easy rapport with his actors really shine.

Boyz N the Hood - This movie is both an important time capsule of a particular time and place (African-American neighborhoods in early 1990s Los Angeles) and a drama that still works. Cuba Gooding Jr., Ice Cube, and Laurence Fishburne all give performances as good as anything they’ve ever done here. The story is a bit predictable, but still affecting and authentic-feeling.

Eve’s Bayou - This is a great, truly original film that deserves to be remembered more widely than it is. It tells the complicated story of an African-American family living in rural Louisiana in the mid-20th century, a story made more complex by layers of possibly unreliable narration. Jurnee Smollett’s performance as the child protagonist is excellent, and Samuel L. Jackson gives one of his best and most down-to-earth performances ever. There are a couple of odd subplots that don’t do all that much here and there, but overall, this film is genuinely something special.

[mikeyd1986]

MIKEY’S PERSONAL BLOG 67, August 2017

On Monday morning, I had my Healthy Cooking on a Budget class at Balla Balla Community Centre in Cranbourne East. With only a few more weeks until the end of term, the class size has significantly been reduced and today there was only 5 other people in the kitchen. However, it seemed to have a positive effect on me as I felt more efficient and more relaxed. I remember being heavily criticised in high school and at TAFE for “not getting involved enough” in group work and this could be the reason why I find it difficult to handle not knowing what to do. Structure will always be necessary for me to succeed in life.

I do believe that Kevin and I make a great team together. Even though I’m an introverted person and lack self-confidence at times, I also see myself as very hard-working and diligent if you give me a task and explain it clearly enough to me. Today we made a sweet orange fillo tart, a savory tart and an oven-baked sweet potato. Making the curd was actually a fun process. Combining caster sugar, cornflour, orange juice and orange zest in a saucepan, you quickly whisk the mixture until it thickens before adding the egg yolks and refrigerating.

Next we started layering and applying canola oil to the fillo pastry sheets. Unlike shortcrust and puff pastry, fillo pastry is very thin and delicate to work with but it didn’t take long for me to get the hang of placing the sheets down gently and pushing them into the tart holes of the baking tray. Next we began preparing the vegetables for the savory tarts. Chopping up red onions, mushrooms, zucchini and parsley, we then cooked them off before adding in some smooth ricotta cheese, feta cheese, salt and pepper.

The last part of the sweet fillo tarts involved making a meringue by combining egg whites and slowly adding in the caster sugar whilst beating the mixture to form soft peaks. We then placed the meringue onto each of the tarts and popped them in the oven for five minutes to brown the meringue slightly. http://www.ballaballa.com.au/progra...

On Monday night, I attended my Body Balance class at YMCA Casey ARC in Narre Warren. This was my second time with instructor Cas (Kaz?) and once again it was a really enjoyable class. It was basically exactly the same release as last time but it didn’t bother me as I still got plenty of benefits out of it. The class is both stimulating and relaxing with a focus on increasing flexibility, core strength, balance and reducing stress levels.

The poses/movements that we did in tonight’s class include: Tai-Chi warm up (Divers pose, Side and Forward Lunges with Sweeping Arms), Sun Salutations (Mountain pose, Forward Fold, Downward Facing Dog, Plank, Baby Cobra, Kneeling Lunge), Standing Strength (Stork pose, Aeroplane, Warrior 1, Three Legged Dog), Hip Openers (Pigeon pose, Prayer with Side Twist), Core (Flip The Dog), Pilates (Bicycle, Bridge with Leg Lift, Scorpion with Tricep Pushup), Yoga Twists (Thread the Needle, Reverse Triangle pose) and Relaxation (Guided Visualisation). https://lesmills.com.au/bodybalance

On Tuesday afternoon, my parents and I went to see the film Annabelle: Creation at Village Cinemas Fountain Gate. It actually came at a really good time because I was feeling unmotivated, depressed, upset and guilty all day. I seem to get really emotionally invested whenever I make a mistake and it affects somebody else is a negative away. I can’t help it. But it’s a really good learning experience for me at the same time. There’s nothing like going to the movies to take your mind off things.

Annabelle: Creation is a prequel to the 2015 film Annabelle. This time, the action focuses on the Mullins family who tragically lose their daughter Bee (Samara Lee) in a car accident. Twelve years later, the Mullins’ invite a nun and several young girls from a orphanage to reside in their home. But it’s not long before that creepy doll Annabelle is discovered and all hell breaks loose.

If you combined elements from Paranormal Activity and The Ring, you’d get something pretty close to this film. You can check off most of the horror movie cliches here...creaking floorboards and doors, sudden loud noises, ghost girls, demonic possession, symbolic crosses. Thankfully, it makes up for things in the storyline department and some really great performances from Lulu Wilson as Linda, Talitha Bateman as Janice and Anthony LePaglia as Samuel Mullins. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5140878...

On Wednesday morning, I had my Strength Training session with Luke Davey at Breakaway Fitness in Berwick. I was still feeling bad about what happened over social media yesterday and decided to get it out of my system with Luke today. I have to remember to not take things so personally and reassure myself that everything will be okay. It’s not like I intended to piss anyone off by tagging people in my posts. It just got out of hand and I needed someone to be brutally honest with me. So it’s done and dusted now.

WARM-UP...Today I started with my usual flowing yoga sequence of thread the needle and pigeon pose. For some reason, I always get myself un-coordinated when I start doing it but eventually I get it. Next I did 3 rounds of 15 glute bridges with a resistance strap bound around my knees. Lastly, I did some stretches into my wrists by leaning over, leaning back and doing figure 8 movements over them.

DEVELOPMENT...Today was my first time doing weighted front squats. Unfortunately, I wasn’t mentally prepared for this and my anxiety was trying everything to ruin it for me. I had to turn down the volume on those negative voices inside of my head...”I can’t do it. Why is this so hard for me? What’s wrong with me?”. Frustration and anger towards the self leads to giving up and wasn’t prepared to do that. Luke was trying his best to explain the technique of placing the bar onto your shoulders and keeping your elbows lifted up high before squatting. It’s just something I need to practice and eventually I’ll improve.

It took me several attempts to finally get it and thankfully Luke had a lot of patience and wanted me to get it. The pain through my wrist and fingers was excruciating but only because my technique and placement of the bar was off. I told myself...“You need to be patient and kind to yourself, Michael. This is the first time you’ve ever done a front squat so you can’t expected too much. Don’t give up. You can do this.” And eventually, I was doing it. I did one round of 4 reps at 45kg, two rounds of 4 reps at 40kg and two rounds of 12 reps at 30kg.  

WORKOUT...Today’s workout involved doing 5 rounds of the following: 20 kettle bell swings and 10 burpees. Looked easy enough on the whiteboard but it didn’t take long for that fatigue to kick in, particularly around the second and third rounds. Here comes to beads of sweat and the deep panting. I try not to let these things bother me anymore. Workouts are meant to be tough and there’s no shame in letting those noises of exhaustion out of my system. Who cares? Whatever the result, I should be super proud of myself. I got a time of 8 minutes and 40 seconds. https://www.facebook.com/breakawayf...

On Thursday afternoon, I had my very first Body Composition Analysis scan done at YMCA Casey ARC in Narre Warren. I tend to always be nervous when I have a first-anything done. It’s fear of the unknown but I was doing my best to remain calm and relaxed about it. Trainer Jovana walked me through what I had to do and it was all very straight forward...stepping onto a scale and grabbing some paddles. She then explained my results to me which was a little overwhelming but thankfully the sheet has all the terms defined on it when I look back over it later.

Here’s some of the more important results from the scan:

Height: 169.0cm    Weight: 88.6kg (with clothes on and personal belongings)  Age: 31 yrs                                 Lean Body Mass: 65.2  (Ideal Range 50.2 - 53.3)                                                                                                                              Total Body Fat: 23.4 (Ideal Range 9.4 - 12.6)                                                                                        Skeletal Muscle Mass: 36.0 (Ideal Range 27.9 - 29.7)                                                                         Body Fat Percentage: 26.4 (Optimal Range 15.0 - 20.0)                                                                          Visceral Fat Level: 10 (Optimal Range 1 - 9)                                                                                       Overall score: 69/100

Overall, I think these results are pretty decent and could be a lot worse. But it also gives me an opportunity to improve and set some new fitness goals for myself. I mainly want to work on lowering my total body fat and body fat percentage. The other results are quite as alarming to me but all I have to do is keep exercising regularly, eating well, drink plenty of water and perhaps increase the intensity of some of my workouts when I’m ready. http://www.caseyarc.ymca.org.au/par...

On Thursday night, I attended my first Flow Tunes yoga class at Now, Yoga. in Narre Warren South. I haven’t been to the studio in over a month for several reasons...financial issues and trying to fit too many other things in during my week. But I had no more excuses left and honestly I really missed being there. It’s been a hectic day for me so I really needed to let go tonight and unwind on the yoga mat.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the studio this packed before with roughly 13-15 other students. Basically, yoga teacher Keren Gurrieri had a selection of songs that she played instead of traditional Indian/Asian inspired music. There were songs from artists including Alicia Keys, David Gray, Adele, U2, Elton John and Sting. We did several flowing sequences of poses including:

Flowing Sequence 1...Downward Facing Dog, Three Legged Dog, Knee to Nose.                         

Flowing Sequence 2...Plank, Chaturanga, Cobra/Up Dog, Downward Facing Dog.                      

Flowing Sequence 3...High Lunge, Warrior 2, Joyful Warrior, Side Angle Pose. .

We also worked on some L-shaped handstands, jumping up onto the wall and forearm balances. My mind instantly went...“There’s no way I can do that.” but with some guidance from Keren, I ended up proving myself wrong and nailed an L-shaped handstand. I genuinely surprised myself because I’m usually so hesitant when it comes to inversions but I decided to give everything a go, even kicking up to the wall. It just takes a lot of strength, patience and practice but eventually you’ll get there. https://www.facebook.com/nowyogastu...

On Friday morning, I had my Strength Training session with Luke Davey at Breakaway Fitness in Berwick. I’ve honestly come such a long way in the last few weeks when I decided to actively start changing my mindset, using my fitness journal and feeling more comfortable training with Luke at UFT PLAYgrounds. The side conversations no longer bother me nor does that fact that I don’t have close friendships with any of the trainers and coaches there. Saying hello and how are you is more than enough.

WARM UP...Today I did my usual 20 reps of scorpion stretches on the blue foam mat before doing 3 rounds of 12 back extensions. It’s getting a lot easier for me and the burn in my thighs was not as intense. However, doing the single arm kettle bell lifts, I noticed that my lower back was starting to hurt again. Time to get the foam roller and rubber ball out again.

DEVELOPMENT...Today I learned another new movement called Deficit Deadlifts. Essentially the only difference is doing the deadlifts standing on a stack of two plates. However, I was still finding this difficult mainly because I had to consciously place the weight back in my heels and maintain my balance on the plates. Plus my lower back and thighs were starting to hurt. But even with all these barriers, I persevered and eventually managed to do 5 rounds of 12 reps at 40-50kg.

WORKOUT...Today’s workout was another sweaty one and also mentally challenging. I had to do 6 rounds of the following movements: 40m sled push (up and back the green track) and 10 push ups. The fatigue was kicking in fast around the second or third round. The self-doubt was trying hard to derail me...“I’m not sure I can do this. Can I even survived six rounds?” But again I chose not to give up. Sometimes it’s not about how fast you can do it and more about just getting it finished.

The workout was also bringing up some emotional baggage for me, remembering how harshly I used to judge myself back in high school PE classes and comparing myself to others in group fitness sessions. “Why am I always the slowest? Why do I keep lagging behind the others? I mustn’t be good enough. Everyone else is better than me.”

And I even confided this in Luke today when I finished my workout. I felt so liberated about being open with him and also being able to let my self-judgement of the past go and genuinely be proud of my achievements. It was a big “Fuck You” to the negative voices inside my head and also to every person who thought I couldn’t do it. I proved it to myself that I could.

“When everything is goin' wrong. Don't worry, it won't last for long. Yeah, it's all gonna come around. Don't go let it get you down. You gotta keep on holding on...Up--up--up--Can only go up from here. Up--up--up--Up. Where the clouds gonna clear. Up--up--up--There's no way but up from here.” Shania Twain - Up (2002)

“It's so very unnecessary. Yeah, how insane to be so vain. It's so synthetic. I just don't get it I don't get it, baby, yeah, yeah. Don't be so obsessed. C'mon give it a rest. This is not some contest--just do your best. 'Cause no--oh body's perfect!” Shania Twain - What A Way To Wanna Be (2002)

[sending-the-message]

Horrible surprise while watching pornos with a childhood friend by RosaPalms

I guess we were probably eleven. Maybe twelve. There was no school; some kind of teacher caucus or contract negotiations or bomb threat. I forget the reason. Vinnie’s dad was at work and we were at Vinnie’s house. We had recently reached that age where we could be trusted to be home alone, and not set the house on fire. This wasn’t the first time I’d been over there without supervision.

Today, however, Vinnie said he had something to show me. I remember being unenthused, as I was more preoccupied with the video games that we usually played. I had always loved going to Vinnie’s house because his dad bought him whatever games he wanted, even the ones with blood and swearing. Today I would guess that it was to try and make up for the fact that he was never around, but at the time I just thought it was cool that I could play Mortal Kombat without getting in trouble.

“What is it?” I asked him as he led me up the stairs towards his room. To my surprise however, we didn’t go to his room as we had so many times before, but turned suddenly and entered his dad’s. I’d never been in his dad’s room before. It was larger than Vinnie’s, with a double bed although Vinnie’s parents were divorced. Across the room from the bed was a corner-unit mahogany desk, with several locking drawers.

“What’s in here?” I asked, my previous question going unanswered.

“You’ll see,” was the only reply I got, a smile lighting up Vinnie’s face. Vinnie was much taller than I was, standing at 5’6” at only twelve years old. He was also considerably more muscular than me; I counted myself fortunately that he valued my friendship as much as he did, because if he hadn’t I surely would have been a target. As it was, his near-constant presence deterred most of the would-be bullies in our school.

Vinnie produced a key from his pocket and practically skipped across the room to his dad’s desk.

Whatever was in there, he was awfully excited to get it.

“Where’d you find the key?” I asked him out of stunned curiosity. In the past while we played video games, we had idly wondered what the contents of his dad’s locked desk drawer might be.

“He left it on top of the desk!” he laughed, “I had to try it when I came in here to do the laundry.” He turned the key and popped the drawer open.

“So what’s in there,” I asked, still standing in the door frame. I was wary about stepping into his dad’s room. Something about his dad was always a little scary to me, and I didn’t imagine he’d appreciate me being there.

“Come and take a look, jeez!” he responded, standing aside so I could approach. I sauntered over reluctantly and peered inside.

Inside the drawer, arranged in neat stacks, was a collection of VHS tapes. The tapes were held in paper sleeves which bore bright, fluorescent colors. I looked at the cover of the tape on top; I saw a photo of four dark-skinned nude women with large breasts and buttocks in a pile performing oral sex upon each other under the title, “Bangin’ Bomb Brazillian Bitches.”

“Is this -”

“Yeah!” Vinnie cried, cutting me off. “It’s my dad’s dirty movies!”

Even above video games, in those adolescent years, pornography had a grip on my imagination. The onset of puberty, not only in myself but in all the students at our suburban middle school, had caused a surge of sexual interest. It was what we all thought about, but with no real sex education program in our school, something that few of us knew anything about. We’d whisper our outlandish theories and pass along stories that we’d heard from older cousins and siblings when we knew there were no teachers – or worse, girls – around to hear us. Sex was an enigma; our bodies were changing, and we could see that those of the girls were as well, but we received frustratingly little information from our parents; I could never put the pieces together, myself. I’d heard things about movies that showed it, but I’d never seen one in person, and in the time before easy access to the internet, coupled with parental supervision, I had very few avenues of even verifying their existence.

Vinnie removed a tape from its box. “Anal Chiropractor” read the title above a photo of a large-busted woman in a low-cut nurse’s outfit. As Vinnie popped the tape into the VCR, I asked him, “what if your dad comes home?”

“He told me he was working late tonight,” he told me, “Probably until at least eight o’clock.” I wonder today when and what Vinnie had for dinner that night, but at the time I was too transfixed with the bouncing titties on the television screen.

I supposed that if I were to watch those tapes today, I would be endlessly amused by the badly-written, inane dialogue, and the implausible, contrived plot, but in my sex-crazed, pre-teen mind, this was fascinating, beautiful, dangerous. This was high art. That my parents would disapprove so vehemently only served to heighten my enchantment. As the doctor, wearing a labcoat, stethoscope, and nothing else entered the 18-year-old porn actress from behind, I knew that I was in the presence of something vital, something urgent, that penetrated into the very depths of my soul.

As the afternoon progressed, we watched nearly every tape in that drawer. I watched as my sexual questions became answered, but some of the tapes only raised further questions. If I had only two parents, why were there five people having sex in “Gangbusters?” Why did women insert things besides penises into their vaginas, and why did they also put things into their anuses as well? And in “Riding Bareback,” what on Earth did a horse have to do with anything?

Still, we moved from tape to tape, discovering new worlds that we had never dreamed possible.

Naturally, we made sure to rewind each tape and place it back exactly where it had been in the drawer to make sure that Vinnie’s dad would never find out. Through it all, I remember being petrified thinking of what might happen had Vinnie’s dad found out.

Around three hours later, Vinnie noticed a strange tape at the very bottom of the pile. In stark contrast to the other tapes, this one had no bright packaging; it was a simple black VHS tape, labeled only with a single strip of masking tape, upon which was written in pencil “9/21/96.” Apparently thinking little of it, Vinnie pushed the tape into the VCR and pressed play.

The tape appeared to be a home video, as the time and date were displayed in the lower right-hand corner of the screen. The camera was motionless, likely resting upon a tripod, and the image before us was that of a young woman tied to a chair. The graininess of the film and the sparse lighting of the room obscured the woman’s face, but she appeared to be gagged. She didn’t have the look of the fleshy, well-built women in the other films we had been watching. Her skin was ghostly pale, she was dangerously skinny, and she looked sick. I imagine today that she was a prostitute, but back then I didn’t know. I thought I was just watching more porn.

A man entered the view of the camera from the right side, completely nude except for a ski mask covering his face, and carrying a small knife. The woman began to shake and whimper as he removed her gag, held his knife to her neck, and grabbing her by the hair, pulled her head down to his groin. I had never heard the phrase “rape” before. I thought they might have just been acting. As he forced his penis into her mouth, I could hear, distorted through the poor quality of the camera, the woman sobbing. She sounded almost as if she were choking. Suddenly, he pulled his penis out of her mouth. The woman gasped for breath as the man walked behind her.

In a flash, he slashed the knife across her throat.

I listened in horror as the girl’s scream was cut off by the gurgling of her own blood, which gushed out of her severed jugular vein and flowed down her neck.

I was shocked. Beyond shocked, really. I was disturbed. I couldn’t reconcile reality with what I had just seen; I just didn’t want to believe it was real. I yelled at Vinnie to turn it off. He seemed as disturbed as I, as he wasted to time ejecting the tape and putting it back in the drawer.

We didn’t talk about what we’d just seen, and after seeing it, neither of us seemed to want to continue watching the tapes. I surely didn’t. At that time, it was around five o’clock, and I told Vinnie I needed to start walking home to be there in time for dinner.

We never talked about that afternoon again. I never really wanted to be at Vinnie’s house after that, either; when he’d invite me over, I’d make up some excuse as to why I couldn’t.

It wasn’t until several years later that I ever heard the phrase “snuff film.” The homemade tapes, showing real murders, filmed for the entertainment of jaded, evil individuals…my blood runs cold even today thinking about what kind of monster gets off to that kind of brutality. What kind of monster Vinnie’s dad must be. What I saw on that tape gave me nightmares for years.

The worst part about a snuff film is that it’s shot only from one camera angle. As I grew older, and my parents’ restrictions on what I was old enough to handle began to relax, I saw many big budget slasher films, shot with multiple cameras to maximize the carnage.

Cut to the gleaming blade in the murderer’s hand.

Cut to the bound, female, in-over-her-head detective.

Cut to the knife, stabbing down.

Cut to the opposite wall, painted red by the spray of blood, as she screams in terror.

Hollywood-fare horror didn’t resonate with me, not after seeing the real thing. No maniacal laughter on the part of the killer, no eerie lighting effects, no surging crescendo of the music as the knife comes down, no hysterical screams from the victim.

Just flat, emotionless acts.

Just a lamp, somewhere behind the camera.

Just sobbing.

Just gurgling.

Just monstrosity.

Vinnie and his dad ended up moving out of town several months later. No one knows where. Vinnie didn’t even tell me. One day they were gone, didn’t even sell the house.

It put me at ease. I had been petrified for months that his dad would find out that I’d seen his tape. I couldn’t imagine what someone twisted enough to own that tape could do to someone who knew his secret. It’s been a few years now, and I’m just starting to feel safe, although the memories of that tape will haunt me until the day I die.

I pray that Vinnie is alright, wherever he is.

Although I wonder…

Did Vinnie remember to rewind the tape before he put it back?