"Prepare to be transfixed by the opening shot in The Messenger, a new documentary about songbird declines. A Black-throated Blue Warbler, closer than you’ve ever seen one, flies in slow motion against a black background. Slo-mo can make anything look graceful (even creatures as clumsy as Hollywood actors) so just imagine what it does for a warbler in full breeding glory. It’s the most beautiful footage of a bird in flight I’ve ever seen."
The Messenger is a visually thrilling ode to the beauty and importance of the imperiled songbird, and what it means to all of us on both a global and human level if we lose them. I am not familiar with the documentary so I am unaware of what the consequences of losing songbirds are, but I did some research, and the documentary has done surprisingly well for a bird documentary. It got an 8.4 out of 10 on IMDB and a 100% out of 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and is being screened all across the United States as well as Canada.
If that doesn't make you want to see the documentary, then maybe this will! Ithaca's very own, Andrew Farnsworth, makes multiple appearances throughout the doc!
Andrew Farnsworth
Definitely a documentary to check out if you have the time. Great flick for the family as well as for education!
Today, October 24th, 2014, White Bird in a Blizzard premieres in theaters everywhere. The new film directed and adapted by Greg Araki, takes place in 1988, focusing on a 17 year old girl whose life turns upside down within one day. The film stars Shailene Woodley playing Kat Connor, the main character.
I first saw this advertised this summer after following a Shailene Woodley blog. The new starlet has been in multiple blockbusters within the last year. One movie that has brought her a lot of attention was Divergent. And shortly after this The Fault in Our Stars, which audiences fell in love with and the performance of her character, Hazel Grace. Shailene being one of my favorite new Hollywood actresses has really come a long way since the days of The Secret Life of an American Teenager. And after seeing the trailer for this new film she is starring in, I see a different person completely.
In White Bird in a Blizzard there are some risky scenes that Shailene stars in. The movie seems to open up with Kat and her first big relationship. She's exploring love for the first time and all the fun that comes with it. However after her mother disappears, and a series of many events unfold, Kat is seen with a much older man in the trailer. Another man that she is trying to somewhat be sexually involved in. There are also scenes where Shailene is completely topless in front of the camera. This is something that I would have never expected Shailene to play. The character is much more exposed than previous characters that she has played. However I think this film, although it has not been promoted nearly as much as The Fault in Our Stars, or Divergent, it will help build her career in a great way.
Although I have not seen it yet, I definitely plan to, I was curious what critics have rated it as. IMDB gave it a rating of a 6.6/10. Not nearly amazing, but not completely horrible. Rotten Tomatoes did give it a 57%. After seeing that rating, I am starting to question what about this movie could have gone wrong. Seeing the trailer I was immediately intrigued. It starts off with a teen finding love for the first time, however her world is turned into completely disaster once her already weird mother disappears. It goes from a romance to a suspenseful film almost immediatly. And the story was adapted from the novel by Laura Kasischke, which scored a 3.6/5 from googlereads, which again isn't completely horrible. I'm wondering if maybe they did not structure the narrative as well as they could. Did they not have a great setup that followed into a convincing catalyst? Were there not enough obstacles that Kat had to face in order to find her mother? And also, how close was the screenplay to the novel?
All of these questions I'm dying to find out. When I saw the trailer, I expected a great movie, and I still do. Hopefully the critics are wrong and it is a great movie.
If you have not watched the trailer yet, I suggest you do.
Rotten Tomatoes: launched in 1998, technically owned by Warner Bros. but originally created by Senh Duong has become one of the most widely known film aggregator of it's time. The issue however is just that, the "like or dislike," "hot or not" aspect of it. But we'll get around to that later. For now, let's get the fun part out of the way, pretend we're Buzzfeed and play with lists and gifs.
I figured it'd be fun to reap the joys of the "hot or not" concept before ripping it to shreads. So let's take a peek at the movies that earned a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. The majority are (surprise) films I've never heard of or, you guessed it, "rotten" sequels. (i.e., Fox and the Hound 2, Mulan II, Kronks New Groove.) These are the films that, apparently, "all critiques consider to be bad films." I mean, I gotta hand it to whomever all these "critiques" happen to be in giving two thumbs down to The Never Ending Story II: The Next Chapter. But who exactly are they and who considered them qualified?
A promotional photo for the (apparently micro-aggresionally racist)
childhood dismantlement: The Never Ending Story II: The Next Chapter
According to MTV.com, the reviews are "based on a set of criteria." Hop onto the Rotten Tomatoes website and said criteria is described as follows, "Movie reviews in the Tomatometer come from publications or individual critics that have been selected by the Rotten Tomatoes staff. "
(Specifics: here.) I then frolicked over to the other end of the spectrum of the long list composed by hundreds of qualified writers across a handful of mediums. Those that earned 100% on the "tomato-meter." The list listed titles such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Battleship Potemkin, and Singin' in the Rain. Hmm... Did Film Aesthetics and Analysis use this wiki webpage to map out our class syllabus?
So what? I'll tell you what. This website is a review aggregator. Meaning, it calculates numeric averages based off of positive or negative ratings to make products easily comparable for consumers as well as creating databases to be sold to third parties. (That's a mouthful.)
Basically, there are obvious flaws to rating something into one of two categories. There is so much that goes into a film and it appears that Rotten Tomatoes ignores and neglects those beautiful complexities.
However, I believe the site is more-so used to spark conversation and expose films to people who wouldn't find them otherwise. For example, thanks to my eyes grazing that "0%" list this evening I do believe I will top off the night with Sex Lives of the Potato Men.
(Why does this exist? I dunno, but I'm sure as hell glad it does.)
A British comedy about the sexual antics of a group of
potato delivery men in Birmingham.
Like
everything, horror movies have evolved. Some people might say that they like
the newer generation horror movies, and every now and then we do get a really
good movie. As a horror maniac...a real big fan of the genre... I can say that there’s
just something that the new movies lack. I don’t know if its the campiness or
character development or even the crazy stories first told from the 60's to
early 90's, it just feels that no one is trying to be creative anymore, no one
is trying new ideas...everyone is just playing it safe in either remaking a
classic or putting a spin on the torture subgenre. But I think horror movies
will soon move out of this slump because fans of the old school horror are
finally coming to of age and directing their own stuff...so I think that this
will definitely help in the next few years. Another reason that horror movies
lack creativity is because studies nowadays are only interested in turning a
profit. They can shoot a horror movie for extremely cheap, even if it sucks,
and turn a profit if the trailers good.
During
my usual week check on Rotten Tomatoes, I noticed that the new Captain America
movie scraped in 95 million dollars at the box office. It really made me think,
why the hell are these super hero movies grossing so much money? What makes
them so appealing these days. Well for one thing Super Hero movies are a form
of escapism. We love rooting for the underdog, and in every super hero movie
the underdog quality is always there. One interesting fact I noticed that the
last time super heroes were so big was during their debut in the 1930's. The
1930's was the time of the Great Depression, comics like Superman, Batman,
Captain America, and Wonder Women were all made to help people escape via
reading during tough times. I find it so fascinating that these films have
becomes so popular during tough economic times. "In the 1930s, the
American Dream had become a nightmare, and I think comic books and superheroes
in particular provided an escapist form of entertainment that allowed the
American public to go into a fantasy world where all the ills of the world were
righted by these larger-than-life heroes," says Erin Clancy, a curator at
the Skirball. Despite weather you like these films are not, they definitely
give us a lot of hope during tough times.
The other day my friends and I were sitting around wondering what movie to see. I was amazed the first question that was asked when I proposed a movie was "what did it get on rotten tomatoes?." Its amazing how much this movie review website impacts our decision on going to see a film. Rotten Tomatoes was created in 1998 by a man named Senh Duong. Its name comes from the cliche of audiences throwing rotten tomatoes or vegetables disapproving a poor performance on stage. Senh Duong created the site because he was inspired by Jackie Chan films and wanted to make a website for reviews for his films. The website became a complete success and in 2010 the website was sold to Flixster. Whats so great about the site is that it won't give me the typical film critique, it will cut the crap and tell me if a movie is either good or bad. But because we have become dependent upon this websites review it will hurt the film industry in general. For me, a film has to be a certain percentage for me to actually go and spend money to see it. For me, and other fans of this website it gives films a certain standard to be able to take my money.
In the spirit of Halloweekend, I decided to look up the greatest horror films of all time. This list is up for debate, and it comes from rottentomatoes.com. The movies are ranked based on the "tomatometer" scores, which I'm sure most of you are familiar with. Critic's votes are also taken into account for these ratings. I can agree with some, however, my personal top 5 are way different from these top 5. I think The Shinning should be a lot higher on this list than where it is listed, as well as Silence of the Lambs (even though I don't consider it a horror movie) Take a look at the list below for yourself and if you feel inclined, comment your top 5 horror movies, you can include movies not on the list.
1
100%
Repulsion (1965)
2
100%
Frankenstein (1931)
3
100%
The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)
4
100%
Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) (1920)
5
100%
Spoorloos (The Vanishing) (1988)
6
100%
The Invisible Man (1933)
7
100%
Vampyr - Der Traum des Allan Grey (1931)
8
100%
Them! (1954)
9
100%
The Witches (1990)
10
98%
Let the Right One In (2008)
11
98%
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
12
98%
Aliens (1986)
13
98%
King Kong (1933)
14
98%
The Evil Dead (1981)
15
98%
Evil Dead 2 (1987)
16
98%
Eyes Without a Face (1960)
17
98%
The Loved Ones (2012)
18
97%
Ringu (Ring) (1998)
19
97%
The Innocents (1961)
20
97%
Werckmeister Harmóniák (2000)
21
96%
Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
22
96%
Psycho (1960)
23
97%
Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horror (Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens)
(Nosferatu the Vampire) (1922)
24
96%
Night of the Living Dead (1968)
25
96%
The Birds (1963)
26
96%
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
27
96%
Martin (1978)
28
96%
Dead of Night (1945)
29
96%
Theater of Blood (Theatre of Blood) (Much Ado About Murder) (1973)
30
96%
[Rec] (2007)
31
96%
Sleuth (1972)
32
96%
Village of the Damned (1960)
33
96%
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
34
95%
Don't Look Now (1973)
35
95%
Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht (Nosferatu the Vampyre) (1979)
36
95%
Suspiria (1977)
37
95%
The Fly (1958)
38
95%
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
39
95%
House of Wax (1953)
40
95%
Deep Red (Profondo rosso) (1975)
41
95%
House On Haunted Hill (1959)
42
95%
Island of Lost Souls (The Island of Dr. Moreau) (1932)
43
95%
Midnight Son (2009)
44
94%
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
45
94%
Halloween (1978)
46
94%
Young Frankenstein (1974)
47
94%
Los ojos de Julia (Julia's Eyes) (2010)
48
94%
Fright Night (1985)
49
94%
The Wolf Man (1941)
50
93%
Gwoemul (The Host) (2006)
51
93%
Room 237 (2013)
52
93%
Gojira (1954)
53
93%
Re-Animator (1985)
54
93%
Freaks (1932)
55
93%
Horror of Dracula (1958)
56
93%
Sleep Tight (2012)
57
93%
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
58
93%
Matinee (1993)
59
92%
Drag Me to Hell (2009)
60
92%
The Cabin in the Woods (2012)
61
92%
The Shining (1980)
62
92%
Carrie (1976)
63
92%
Cat People (1942)
64
92%
I Walked With a Zombie (1943)
65
92%
The Mummy (1932)
66
91%
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
67
91%
The Fly (1986)
68
91%
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
69
91%
An American Werewolf in London (1981)
70
91%
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1960)
71
91%
Dracula (1931)
72
91%
Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut (2004)
73
91%
Eraserhead (1977)
74
91%
Arachnophobia (1990)
75
91%
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
76
90%
Zombieland (2009)
77
90%
Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
78
90%
The Wicker Man (1974)
79
90%
Phantom Of The Opera (1925)
80
90%
The Dead Zone (1983)
81
90%
The Return of the Living Dead (1985)
82
90%
The Tenant (1976)
83
90%
Seconds (1966)
84
90%
Hausu (House) (1977)
85
89%
Let Me In (2010)
86
89%
Russian Ark (2002)
87
89%
Ginger Snaps (2000)
88
89%
Cronos (1993)
89
89%
Near Dark (1987)
90
89%
House of Usher (The Fall of the House of Usher) (1960)
My dad doesn't always watch movies... But when he does, he watches Kevin Costner movies.
As a kid growing up, I didn't have the attention span to make it through a single one. I have recently made it my mission to watch all the movies he has ever produced, directed, and/or starred in, though. This may take me a while, as his movies all seem to be approximately 4 hours long.
If you looked at ratings by Rotten Tomatoes, Kevin Costner has definitely had some big hits, and some even bigger misses. However, I find that some of the movies with the lowest ratings seem to be some of my favorites. For example, The Postman. Rotten Tomatoes critics gave it a whopping 9%, but I prefer to call it a masterpiece. Costner both directs and stars in this movie, where a makeshift postman reunites a post-apocalyptic America by delivering mail. Maybe an odd concept to wrap one's head around, but I dont want to spoil the movie for those who may actually read this post and have the intrest of watching it.
Kevin Costner's typical style defies Hollywood norms. He makes movies as long as they need to be, rather than editing them down to a more appealing length for the general public. In some cases, his movies turn out twice the length of a typical feature film. Another rule he seems to break is to choose factual details rather than bending the truth to make more drama and/or action, shown best in his movie entitled "Wyatt Earp" that shows the life of the horse thief turned lawman of the Wild West. This is a risky style to follow, but I like how different he is and I havent come across a Costner movie that I wholeheartedly disliked. His differing style that leads to spectacular movies (in my opinion) is my inspiration for breaking the rules, and finding something outside of normal that is still appealing to at least a small portion of viewers.
I encourage you all to IMDb Kevin Costner and watch at least one of his films.
