To celebrate the 10th anniversary of BRWC, Scott and Orla are joining in on the celebratory spirit by complaining about all the films over the past 10 years that don’t get the fuss about.
Everybody Wants Some!! is a 2016 American comedy film, written and directed by Richard Linklater, about college baseball players in Texas in 1980. The film stars Will Brittain, Zoey Deutch, Ryan Guzman, Tyler Hoechlin, Blake Jenner, Glen Powell, and Wyatt Russell. The film had its world premiere at South by Southwest on March 11, 2016, and was theatrically released in the United States on March 30, 2016, by Paramount Pictures. The film grossed $4.6 million and received critical acclaim.
The film received a limited release across 19 locations in New York City and Los Angeles on March 30. Deadline Hollywood said “should the film make $20K per theater that would be great. If it makes north of a $35K average, that would be fantastic.” The film’s opening weekend per-screen gross was $16,440; the final gross was $4.6 million—well below the film’s $10 million budget.
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a rating of 87% based on 186 reviews and an average rating of 7.6/10. The site’s critical consensus reads, “Nostalgic in the best sense, Everybody Wants Some!! finds Richard Linklater ambling through the past with a talented cast, a sweetly meandering story, and a killer classic rock soundtrack.”On Metacritic, the film has a score of 83 out of 100 based on 50 reviews, indicating “universal acclaim”.
Reposted from the archives, to help celebrate #BRWC10.
By Last Caress.
Niagara Falls police detective and Iraq war veteran John Dromoor (Nicolas Cage, The Rock) is flagged down by a 12 year old girl after she witnesses her mother, Teena, being brutally attacked and left for dead by a group of local men.
When the men are caught, their parents hire slick criminal defence attorney Jay Kirkpatrick, (Don Johnson, Django Unchained) who puts the focus on Teena’s credibility, based on her sobriety and promiscuity. Shockingly her assailants are exonerated and released, even though the daughter’s testimony should have alone been enough for a certain conviction.
In the aftermath of the verdict Dromoor grows increasingly close to the victim and her family, who he then discovers are being taunted and stalked by the freed men. The injustice becomes too much for him to take and, fuelled by a sense of vengeance and his own personal demons, Dromoor sets out on a lone campaign to dole out the justice the men deserve.
Vengeance: A Love Story
How provocatively can a woman behave before she’s asking to be sexually assaulted? How far, before any battering she receives becomes her fault, and not that of her attackers? The answer is of course that there is NO distance a woman can go before she deserves to be raped, but these are the questions being put to the good folk of Niagara Falls, NY, in this, the new film by director Johnny Martin (Delirium). Based on the 2003 novella Rape: A Love Story by Joyce Carol Oates, Vengeance: A Love Story plays in many ways like an eighties/nineties TV thriller. This feeling is no doubt augmented by the star turns of both Don Johnson in strutting peacock mode as cocksure defender Jay Kirkpatrick and of a (thankfully) largely restrained Nicolas Cage as John Dromoor, the detective determined to dispense justice when the law will not. The real stars here however are Anna Hutchison (The Cabin in the Woods) as Teena, the victim of the attack, and Talitha Bateman (The 5th Wave) as Bethie, the girl who witnessed the entire assault on her mother. I expected to find myself referring to Miss Bateman as a newcomer but this is her fifteenth picture and, given her ability on display here, I really shouldn’t have been surprised.
Vengeance: A Love Story
In addition to the rape itself which is brutal but mercifully brief, Vengeance: A Love Story is often a hard watch, from the various scenes of young Bethie being harried in her small town by the friends and relatives of the rapists, to the court scenes in which Teena is pulled to pieces all over again in an entirely different but hardly less inhuman manner. Things unfortunately degenerate into more typical Nicolas Cage territory later on but, this being a straight-to-video affair, that was always on the cards.
Vengeance: A Love Story
Vengeance: A Love Story never drags, Nicolas Cage maintains a laconic restraint for the most part, and the movie – due out on March 27th, 2017 – is certainly worth at least a look.
People, as a rule, need little excuse for a celebration. As a species that has managed to label a time of day Gin O’Clock/Wine O’Clock (delete as applicable), birthdays are comparably legitimate reasons to mark an occasion. The 18this the time to abuse newfound liberation, while the 21stis a last hurrah before the impending realisation the title of ‘adult’ is now unavoidable.
But anniversaries in particular provoke a type of wistful fondness for what has come before; a youthful energy the rest of life is spent trying to reclaim. Bands depart on anniversary tours, playing albums in full, in turn feeling part celebratory, and in part an acknowledgement of futility that their best days are behind them.
Only in cinema do anniversaries come complete with good-will. Instead of basking in nostalgia, what these anniversaries allow for are modern reassessments, analyses of legacy, and excuses for fans to revisit classics and younger audiences to discover them for the first time.
2018 alone sees Heathers, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Grease, and The Producers all celebrate milestones with cinematic rereleases. With an unreal amount of films released annually, it is understandable even the most ardent cinemagoer has gaps in their knowledge. I hold my hands up and admit I saw Grease for the first time this year thanks to an anniversary screening.
What a way to come to a classic it was. After its initial run, a film is lucky to ever be seen in cinemas again, where – despite modern advances in cinematic consumption – it was meantto be seen. Since its release in 1978, Grease has made its mark on both film and music history, but for younger generations, many will have had to settle for home video, at least for their initial viewing.
The cinema was teeming with young couples, the parents of whom lived through Summer Nights as teenagers themselves. Alongside them were couples who still had ticket stubs from ’78. Some were there alone, curious of what all the fuss is about, while some solitary patrons simply weren’t going to miss seeing a favourite on the big screen even if no one else fancied it.
It presents the question: what from today’s crop will be celebrated decades from now? Are the likes of Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, Zero Dark Thirty, Moonlight, and Boyhood films we will look back on fondly, considering ourselves lucky to have seen at the time of their initial release? Are these the films a new generation will call for a chance to see in cinemas, having bestowed upon them worthy amounts of praise and influence over years and years?
With each marking of the calendar, the weight of history is felt, and the expanse of the unwritten hangs above. The now is a chance to engage with what we have and to create for tomorrow. It is a privilege of cinema to be able to celebrate its anniversaries, and a delight to know that will always be true.
Reposted from the archives, to help celebrate #BRWC10.
By Brogan Ord Staunton.
Every year all of the 2013 “favourite movie” lists start with the same old, “this year was a great/the best year for film” and this year shall be no different. 2013 was a fantastic year for film and so, it was hard to make this list. Somehow, I feel an honorable mention should be appointed to Anchorman 2. After seeing it on the day of release, though I had some quims about it, one can not deny it was a solid contender if not just for the cameos alone, but so as not to spoil it, I will say nothing else on the matter.
Another mention must go to the fact I have left a few marvel favourites out of the list. Though Thor 2 and Iron man 3 were released this year, I feel that this list more defines 2013, as if any year will be Marvels year, it’s going to be 2015.
So with no further or do, here are my favourite films of 2013 starting with number 3 and I am going to start with the one and only, Alan Partridge.
Now, growing up, I had never been privy “The Alan Partridge Show”, so going into the cinema, I did not have a clue what to expect. Though within 10 minutes, I had realized I had most definitely been deprived of something great.
It reminds me the joy of British humour, though I realize he is an acquired taste though you one cannot deny is endlessly quotable and definitely one of the most humorous films of 2013. An accessible film for any Partridge novice.
He truly is the biggest thing to come out of Norwich, in my eyes anyway.
As a fan of the original, I feel like the one of the few who appreciate the 2013 reboot of the Evil Dead, for what it is, a good old fashioned gore-fest. It is as if people forget that it is a continuation, not a remake. Also, in terms of style, with technology we have today, consider this film was made 22 years ago, that is not going to be the same no matter how it is tackled. Though personally, I enjoyed it. It was one of the few times I could watch a horror and enjoy it for the story instead of hiding behind my hands. The gore was beautifully done, well, as beautifully as any gore can be, but it wasn’t in excess and the bits say for instance involving a chainsaw, though in most movies that would have been unwatchable, I could enjoy it for what it was. To me, the story made a lot more sense. Obviously, nothing can beat the original, or more so Evil Dead 2, but it is up there in my eyes as a contender in the series.
And so we come to the last movie on my list. Seth Rogen and co were most definitely the highlight of my 2013, containing some the most humorous scenes of the year. Also, for those of who have seen it, the end is most definitely my favourite movie moment of the entire year, more so because of my guilty love for boybands than anything. But that is all I shall say on the matter of the Backstreet Boy, the film itself was simply hilarious from start to finish and in my eyes, completely original. Other than the Backstreet Boys, there are endless moments which I could choose as my favourite, which are only emphasized by the self-deprecated humour. Goldberg and Rogen are a writing match to be reckoned with. This is definitely a film that will forever be a firm stander in my top 10 favourite films of all time.
Horror as a genre has evolved a great deal over the years, perhaps more than any other. Sure, on the face of it, the clichés are all very much the same, and for the most part we know what to expect when we sit down to watch a major release, but somehow in spite of this, the very definition of ‘horror’ has changed in the eyes of the public, and it’s all down to Hollywood themselves.
This is a topic that I’ve been pondering for quite some time, but it was the public reaction to the recent Ari Aster film ‘Hereditary’ that encouraged me to put it into words. When I saw the film at the cinema, I was very impressed by it, but all I could hear from the audience were shouts of ‘well, that was a waste of time’, ‘that was boring’ and ‘I wouldn’t even give it 1/10’.
The film was exceptionally well-received by critics. It currently has an 89% score on Rotten Tomatoes based on a whopping 257 reviews, and the hype-train was in full swing upon release. However, when you look at the audience score on the same website, you’ll see a score of 59%, based on over 7,000 user ratings.
Sure, this still shows that more people liked the film than didn’t, but it is far more divisive than the reaction from critics, and you only have to look at the comments themselves to see that. For every person calling it the ‘best horror film in years’, you’ll find at least one other referring to it as ‘one of the worst movies’ they’ve ever seen. It’s always interesting when this level of division occurs, and what really gets fascinating is when you begin to discuss why that is the case.
The Last Jedi
There are a number of variables when discussing this topic, but it often comes down to the particular film in question and the expectations of its target audience. The recent Star Wars film ‘The Last Jedi’ was widely polarizing. Despite its 90% score on Rotten Tomatoes from 376 reviews, the audience score sits at a less impressive 46%, based on comments made by 200,000 passionate fans.
No matter how many times you look at it, the main reason for this divide comes down to what each individual fan personally expected out of a Star Wars movie, and the side of the fence they sat on ultimately depended on whether or not the film delivered what they had wanted, irrespective of the technical merits of the filmmaking itself. You see, with something like Star Wars, the merits don’t actually matter. Whether you love the movie or hate the movie will always come down to your personal expectations, whether you realise it or not.
Although the fan base for Star Wars may be far louder than any others, this is still the case for most other films that get released, and the entire horror genre is now suffering as a result of the change in audience expectation caused by Hollywood itself.
The general public simply doesn’t respond well to real horror anymore. In fact, they don’t respond well to any horror that offers anything more complex or intelligent than they’re used to seeing in the genre. If a film makes them think, they just write it off as ‘artsy’ and move on with their lives, being sure to tell everyone they know that the film ‘sucked’.
This actually applies to all movies. Thanks to major Hollywood releases being so simple and watered down, the public have unknowingly got used to the ‘simple’, and they write off anything that makes them think even a little bit as being ‘pretentious’. I don’t think people actually know what ‘artsy’ and ‘pretentious’ mean, anymore. Sure, films like these do exist, but you’ll rarely find them in your multiplex cinema. You’ll more likely find ‘artsy’ films at festivals and independent cinemas being shown to the small percentage of people they were made for. Sadly, these days those terms just get thrown around incredibly easily to describe any film even remotely challenging or different.
Films that are described as ‘artsy’ now would’ve never been described as such decades ago. I’ve heard people refer to ‘La La Land’ in such a way, forgetting the fact that in the Golden Age of Hollywood those movies were about as mainstream as it could get. People have criticised the film for being ‘up itself’ and ‘pretentious’ because of the surprising ending it gave its audience. Once again, there is nothing remotely ‘artsy’ about such a creative decision. The general public received it in such a way because it wasn’t the ending that Hollywood has trained them to expect.
This goes a long way to explaining why ‘La La Land’ was popular with critics but more divisive with audiences, while ‘The Greatest Showman’ was hugely popular around the globe but had left critics unimpressed. The latter gave audiences what they expected from the genre, whereas ‘La La Land’ was a little more daring, and that polarized a lot of people. It’s all quite obvious when you really think about it. Hollywood has taught us to expect certain things, and when a film comes along with a different vision, the general public simply criticise it as being ‘pretentious’.
It might sound like I’m knocking the general public, but the truth is that my complaints lie with Hollywood. It’s what they put out that affects the way we feel and what we expect. The public can’t really be at fault for what they demand in their movies when it all comes down to the films themselves, and there is no genre that has been so badly affected by this than horror.
Let’s get back to ‘Hereditary’, as this is the most recent example I have. Let’s take a look at some of the comments made by users on Rotten Tomatoes who had not enjoyed the film, and see if we can figure out why:
‘This movie was a pretentious piece of hot garbage.’
There’s that word ‘pretentious’ again…
‘I saw it. It was long and it was awful.’
‘Storyline is boring and build-up is too slow.’
‘Like watching an ok school play. The movie was flat out boring for the most part and the ending left myself and the rest of the audience looking to each other saying what the hell was that crap.’
So, the general consensus from these comments is that the film was ‘slow, boring, and had far too long a build-up’. Let’s talk about that, for a moment.
Ultimately, we can all refer to said ‘build-up’ by another term: suspense. You see, true shock and awe only works if there has been a significant build-up before it, especially in horror. The problem now is one that people have discussed in great detail but somehow seem to keep coming back to… jump scares.
I know, I know. You’re sick of hearing this, right? Well, the truth is, it is a much bigger issue than you might think. It’s not just a question of these scares being fundamentally lazy and cheap, but they genuinely have a long-lasting impact on their audience. Let me explain.
There is nothing remotely impressive about a jump scare. I mean, they can work. If they’re earned, coming after a long period of well-crafted suspense and offering the audience something actually terrifying at the jump, then yes, they can work when done correctly. Jump scares have been around for as long as the genre itself, and there are countless examples of it being used successfully, but sadly that isn’t the case anymore with the large majority of mainstream Hollywood releases.
Sausage Party
Jump scares now don’t come after a particularly long build-up. They happen frequently. They happen constantly, to the point where that is exactly what you expect as a viewer. You see, the key to the ‘shock factor’ in movies is to not shock the viewer particularly often. That’s the whole point. The shock factor is lost the more frequently you do something. It’s basic common sense. The makers of ‘Sausage Party’ might think it’s shocking having animated food swear and make rude jokes, but when the entire film is like that, it loses any impact they thought it would have, and similarly with horror movies, if you make someone jump every few minutes, sooner or later there is nothing remotely surprising about that anymore.
Audiences now not only expect jump scares, but thanks to the over-used clichés of the genre, they can see them coming. They know the signs when they see them, and the only reason they still jump is because of the loud noise that comes with it.
Yes, the famous ‘loud noise’. The laziest thing about mainstream Horror filmmaking is the dreaded jolt that comes with every supposed scare. This is nothing but a cheap trick that takes zero creative skill. It’s not a difficult task to copy and paste a loud noise over the film in the editing stage. The most frustrating thing about it is that it works. You hear a loud jolt and you jump out of your seat, but despite the fact that it works, you can’t help but feel lied to, because what you were shown wasn’t actually scary at all.
The problem with this is that people come out of these movies and say it was ‘really scary’, when really what they mean is that they jumped a lot. This isn’t the same thing. I could slowly walk up to my friend from behind, grab them by the shoulder and shout ‘boo!’ and it would probably make them jump out of their skin, but they would never claim to be ‘scared’ of me.
Being genuinely scared is a very different thing to being ‘startled’, and that is exactly what jump scares are: a startle. It’s a loud noise that makes you jump for a brief moment, it’s over in a matter of seconds, and in amongst the sea of other scares in the movie, you forget all about it by the next day. You claim it was scary, but none of the imagery in the film really stuck with you. You jumped, you giggled about it with friends in your seats, and then you turned to the screen again and waited for the next one.
This is how people view horror movies now.
‘I don’t know where all the scary parts are supposed to be there wasn’t a single moment that made anybody in the cinema scream, or jump, or even gasp’
That was another quote from a Rotten Tomatoes user who gave the film one star.
Horror isn’t simply about how many times you jump. It’s exactly what it says on the tin: horrific. You are shown something horrific and unpleasant that you likely won’t get out of your head for some time. Horror movies should be uncomfortable experiences.
Think about ‘Psycho’. It’s considered to be one of the finest horror films ever made, but the film only really has one jump scare right at the very end, that works as a result of the terrific build-up that came before it. But, if ‘Psycho’ was released in 2018, you have to wonder if people would just call it ‘slow’, ‘boring’ and ‘pretentious’.
That’s exactly the point. The greatest horror films of recent years would’ve been huge mainstream hits 40 or more years ago. There is nothing ‘artsy’ about them. Think about films like ‘Hereditary’, ‘The Babadook’, ‘It Follows’, ‘The Witch’, ‘It Comes At Night’, ‘Black Swan’, ‘Under The Skin’, and ‘Oculus’. These films were all critically acclaimed, but they divided the public. However, much like the classics from back in the day, they are all about the slow build-up of tension and suspense, mixed with horrific imagery along the way that sticks with you, as well as interesting themes featured within, all of which builds to a big finale. They’re doing exactly what the genre greats always did, and the only reason they’ve proven polarizing is because they were unfortunate enough to be released now, when the meaning of horror has simply redefined itself.
The most memorable and iconic shot from ‘The Exorcist’ is the one in which Regan’s head turns. Is this a jump scare? No, it’s a shocking piece of cinema that lingers in your memory, and has continued to linger for decades. There is a shot in ‘Hereditary’ that is similarly shocking. I couldn’t get it out of my head.
The problem now isn’t that these moments aren’t scary. It’s that the general public now define how scary a movie is by how many times it made them jump, and once again this isn’t their fault. It’s Hollywood’s movies that have changed these perceptions.
Horror movies are notoriously cheap to make. They cost next to nothing but are capable of turning extremely large profits (there is a reason that ‘Paranormal Activity’ is the most profitable movie ever made, and it has nothing to do with quality). The problem is that this has inspired major studios to be incredibly lazy with these films, when in reality horror should be one of the most imaginative genres there is due to the limitless possibilities of it.
So, they churn out sloppily put together movies that tick all the right boxes. Whether it’s with a group of friends hanging out in a cabin, or a family who have just moved into a new house, you can expect 90 minutes of jump scares and loud noises followed by a CGI monster in the final act.
Every. Single. Time.
As a result of these movies dominating the mainstream market, audiences have associated this as the ‘genre norm’ and reject anything that presents an interesting story, well-though-out character development, and well-crafted suspense filmmaking as simply being ‘boring’ and ‘pretentious’, when in reality they are doing what the genre has always done.
Hollywood has shot itself in the foot, so now when genuinely brilliant pieces of horror cinema come along, they aren’t as appreciated with the public as perhaps they would have been years ago. As a result of this change in perception, audiences won’t pay for these movies anymore, and instead flock to see the safe bets, and since Hollywood doesn’t care about quality, but simply about the profits, they just keep making more of the same… over and over again.
It never ends.
Paranormal Activity 3
Some of the most profitable horror movies in recent years have been ‘Ouija’, ‘The Purge’, ‘The Quiet Ones’, ‘The Devil Inside’, ‘Paranormal Activity’ and ‘Annabelle’, none of which have been particularly praised, but many of which have spawned sequels. It’s getting worse year-in, year-out. It’s why these movies exist in the first place. It’s why they have sequels, and it’s why the genre’s most interesting films are rejected.
The crazy thing is that this is just one way in which Hollywood’s biggest studios are creating this problem. The other is the marketing. Thanks to the public’s perception of what a horror film should be, they feel they must market every single one they make in exactly the same way.
‘The trailer had me excited to see a creepy movie about ghosts and witch families. Instead I got…this.’
‘Hereditary’ and ‘It Comes At Night’ were both criticised for having misleading marketing. Now, this has nothing to do with the films themselves, but because the studio felt the need to promote the film in a mainstream fashion, they appealed to the wrong audience.
If you promote your film to the people who enjoyed films like ‘Ouija’ and ‘Annabelle’, then they will go into it expecting to see something similar to ‘Ouija’ and ‘Annabelle’, and when they don’t get that, they’re going to feel frustrated. This isn’t helping anybody. Films should be marketed to the people who will appreciate them. If that runs the risk of a smaller return, so be it. It’s better to have a small group of people who feel satisfied with what you’ve given them, than a large group of people who feel lied to, and feel the need to shout about it on the internet. Surely this is all that matters? Do we not remember the silly lawsuit against ‘Drive’? Surely this is all just common sense?
Wait, I’m talking about Hollywood, who am I kidding?
Movies are a business. We all know that, and there is no doubt that modern Hollywood knows how to make a lot of money. It’s pretty much a science at this point. But, and you can call me old fashioned, I think the effect it’s having on the horror genre as a whole is of much greater value than the dollar bills they may or may not bring.
Hollywood has redefined horror as we know it. We no longer associate that feeling of discomfort and uneasiness with horror, but instead measure a film’s fear-factor by how many times it threw a loud noise at us. This is thanks to major studios getting overly lazy with the movies they produce, releasing factory-made films that tick all the right boxes. The majority of the general public don’t venture out to independent cinemas and festivals, but instead see whatever their local multiplex is showing, and seeing as these aforementioned films dominate that market, this has become horror as we know it.
When this becomes all people consider as ‘horror’, it also becomes all they’re willing to pay to actually see. So, since studios only focus on the profits, they blow their budget on sequels and sometimes even rip-offs of movies that have been successful, dominating the market to an even greater extent. On the rare occasion that they actually have a horror film that is a little more different, they market it for the masses, ultimately setting them up for disappointment, whatever the end result may be.
The long-term impact of this is that when people are shown movies that actually try, that are inventive, well-crafted, interesting and well-written, they just aren’t impressed anymore. It’s all just considered ‘pretentious’, when in reality it’s simply a horror film that’s had some effort put into it. It’s a shame that Hollywood has had such a drastic impact on the public’s perceptions of an entire genre, but it has happened. All we can hope is that this new horror fad is simply a phase, and much like any other phase, it will pass in time.
