Was a wee quiet regarding movie reviewing this year – it’s been busy! But I still managed to get to ‘Barbenheimer’ that took over the world there for a while. All I can say is I’m glad I managed to source a pink hair accessory for the Barbie premiere. It was a very pink affair. And a surprisingly refreshing feminist message that did balance in the end. But like everyone, I’ve never seen a film so blunt – ‘I’m a man without power, does that make me a woman?’
I was more drawn to the thriller genre this year – surprise, surprise, with Saltburn blowing away the cobwebs with its sharp wit and extravagance, but let’s start the list with a documentary that I still think about, particularly while watching the TV series, The Fall of the House of Usher with the documentary about Nan showing in the background to underline the correlation her story had with the series about the evils of pharma, meet photographer and activist, Nan Goldin:
If you’re already a fan of the John Wick franchise, Chapter 4 is obviously a must-see and in my opinion, as good as the previous JW3: the detail, the humour, the dogs, the camera work, those shots from above a seriously successful device to show more of the action… Action at its very best.
Complicated, suspenseful, political, scientific and psychological. It’s a lot.
But that raging fire and those blurred edges and uncertainty around Oppenheimer’s character to then reveal the truth of all those involved in the creation of the bomb added up to a sophisticated film that demanded full attention.
Somehow, Nolan has captured an aberration using Oppenheimer as a voice. And that takes brilliance.
Another strange one for me this year. I haven’t been able to live in my home for the past three months, having to for-go screener reviews. My troubles are small, I know. And I hope that each and everyone is looking after themselves and keeping safe. The escapism of being emersed in the world of cinema has and will always be a sanctuary with some true gems this year, lifting and provoking thoughts about all the important stuff. There is more to life than the ongoing leak into my ceiling!
So, my Top 10 for 2022 it’s all about the layers of living this life – the depths of what’s hidden underneath, the most satisfying viewing when a story surprises, when the film comes full circle to, understand the question and the corresponding answer from the characters. This year, it was about understanding the why of the characters. That’s what kept me coming back, to fascinate, starting with:
Controversial, divisive, ambitious and thought-provoking in a beautiful setting that spoke of poetry; a backdrop to the journey of understanding, ‘men.’
The pacing of this adaptation of Joe Hill’s short fiction piece led the way to a mysterious piecing of a dark puzzle that had me cheering for this supernatural thriller.
Special mention here of, Smile that I watched but didn’t review – was my best current release for Halloween viewing.
I kinda fell in love with The Fabelmans because there was something genuine in the feeling, the characters rounded-out without slapping the face with it.
There’s a perfect play of darkness and light as the story starts digging deeper: it’s funny, sometimes confronting, it’s explosive, dramatic and heart-warming.
Added to the Kung Fu fighting and humour there’s also a good foundation to the family drama so I had a good giggle, got a little teary, and was pleasantly surprised by edgy concepts held together with the use of chapters to give the movie structure.
If you’re reading this review, you’re more than likely going to go watch it and I highly recommend it: go watch it.
Based on the novel written by Lawrence Osborne, the complicated idea of this abrasive Englishman willing to leave with the nomadic father of the boy he has just killed is the beginning of the unpacking of his complicated nature.
I’m a huge fan of John Michael McDonagh’s previous films, greatly enjoyed and included in my, ‘If you haven’t watched, you’re in for a treat,’ list: ‘The Guard (2011) and Calvary (2014) and like these previous films, The Forgiven is a quality film that will stay with you.
Executive Produced by: Brad Pitt, Lila Yacoub, Megan Ellison, Sue Naegle
Based on the New York Times Investigation by: Jodi Kantor, Megan Twohey and Rebecca Corbett and the Book, She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey
Screenplay by: Rebecca Lenkiewicz
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Zoe Kazan, Patricia Clarkson, Andre Braugher, Jennifer Ehle with Samantha Morton and Ashley Judd.
‘He took my voice that day, just when I was starting to find it.’
It’s sobering to remember back to the times before the #MeToo movement, the moment when women found a voice to say, enough.
And the spark that began that conversation, to begin to unpack the silence around the systemic abuse of women and the system that protected those that thought it was OK to sexual abuse women was the New York Times investigative journalists, Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor.
Back to when Rose McGowan spoke, no, shouted what needed to be said, to try to fight the machine built to protect abuses while ignoring the abused or even inflicting more punishment on those who dared to speak out.
And so the silence continued.
Reminiscent of Spotlight (2015), the film follows Twohey and Kantor as they work through the research: the meetings, making calls, the reviewing with senior editors, the back and forth – have they got a story here? Are the rumors true? Will anyone go on the record against Harvey Weinstein?
As the executive running two of the biggest names out there, Miramax and the Weinstein Company, Weinstein was able to intimidate and silence survivors with settlements and non-disclosure agreements for decades.
But after an article in the New York Times was posted about the claims of abuse against Bill O’Reilly leading to O’Reilly being fired from Fox News (in 2017), they could say, as investigative journalists, their article made a difference. They were heard and when advertisers started to withdraw from Fox News, the powers that be were forced to take action.
And from that perspective, perhaps there was more to these rumors, making the story of Weinstein’s abuse was worth pursuing.
It’s an emotive story but shown through the clear-eyes of the journalists putting the story together.
Director Maria Schrader says. ‘It’s a very dramatic story, with strong characters up against steep odds and a powerful antagonist, crisscrossing the globe and jumping back and forth in time. This material was so rich to begin with, the task was teasing out its particulars, not heightening or overdramatizing what was already there.’
The abuse isn’t shown in the film, as Schrader notes, ‘I am not interested in adding another rape scene to the world,’ she continues. ‘We’ve had enough of them.’
Instead, the damage is shown by seeing a young Irish girl, 1992, excited to become part of the movie business as a runner, to flash forward to 2016, to see that same girl running down a busy street in New York with tears streaming down her face.
After so many pieces of the story filtering through the news over the years, it was interesting to see the linear picture, to see the story of Weinstein’s downfall and the beginning of a movement that literally changed the world.
I found the leads, Zoe Kazan and Carey Mulligan as the journalists, Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey in the film likeable, relatable; scary how the stories are relatable. And including Ashley Judd as herself (I’m a big fan of Judd and this just makes me admire her more) in the film and the audio taped while a wire was used to catch Weinstein in the act made an emotive storyline a powerful one.
Not a film I would normally enjoy watching, but there’s a careful constraint here, so the story can be heard rather than turning the audience away.
I was awed by this film, with mouth dropping open at the scenery, the use of light, the pattern of rock, the flowing yellow fabric of Lady Jessica’s dress in the desert wind, the explosive bombs dropping from spaceships, desecrating the landscape below and the story of betrayal, political play and intrigue.
There’s that absolute silence that again invites the audience to lean in, to then jump (there are so many jumps!) with explosive action, the audience gasping and twittering as the monsters prowl, purr and claw people apart.
Now we’ve finally got a road map of when Melbournians are allowed back in the cinemas, we can look forward to the… 7th of November. Which is still a long way off. So, here’s a list of four star + movies available for streaming while we wait get back to the big screen:
It’s been a busy year taking on another part-time job (because we all know movie reviewing doesn’t pay the bills, but it sure is fun) so a fair chunk of posted reviews are from contributors, notably, the wonderful, Lisa Roberts.
Top of Lisa’s list this year features the Spanish psychological mystery starring Javier Bardem and Penélope Cruz, Everybody Knows (Todos Lo Saben).
And for something different, see Nicole Kidman in the gritty crime thriller, Destroyer, or the recent release of French historical-romance, Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
Unfortunately, I was unwell around Halloween (yep, one of those years) so I missed some of the horror-thrillers, Joker being the film I regret missing the most…
I finally got to, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood deserving a special mention; a divisive film but one I enjoyed because Tarantino is just such a good writer (or re-writer of history in this case): clever and strangely uplifting, Once Upon A Time is like righting a wrong provoking a deep satisfaction and excuse to enjoy some gratuitous violence and in that sense, a classic Tarantino.
Which leads me to my reviewed, Top 10 for 2019.
I love a good thriller, but I’m finding my taste in movies requires levels, a journey.
Well, my top rating of Hellboy may not reflect this new sophistication – I still love some blood and guts with fantasy and a wry sense of humour.
But some of the family animation out there is mind blowing, as is the foreign film selection released this year, many rating 4-stars with Bong Joon-Ho’s, Parasite making my number one release.
And let’s not forget the indie films, the stand-out for me this year from legendary film maker and star, Jim Cummings: Thunder Road.
Set entirely in the room housing the workspaces for those answering and directing the urgent calls incoming, the film focuses on the mysterious Asgar as he shows the classic signs of burn-out.
This is a tense psychological thriller as we’re taken down a dark road of murder, fear and the frustration of being on the end of the phone trying to get to the person on the other side.
The animation of this adventure-packed film is stunning; the burst of colours and detail of waterfalls and at the antics of Toothless in his attempt to woo the beautiful Light Fury hilarious and delightful.
Superficially, this is a western, a classic tale of two bad guys going after a man who’s found the secret to finding gold. But underneath all the killing and gold fever is a delicate tale of humanity.
The DreamWorks Animation team have outdone themselves, the trailer for Abominable not translating just how majestic the film is on the big screen. There were so many times I said, ‘Amazing’ and ‘Wow’ from watching the trio of kids and yeti ride a wave of yellow blossoms to see raindrops fall to the earth to unfurl into flowers. And not just a few times, the film is just one wonderful moment after another.
I’m still reeling from those fight scenes that somehow managed to tap into that fight response fuelling the experience with adrenaline. It’s just relentless, the hit after hit, I could feel the force as I laughed and cringed and grinned through all the blood and violence because it’s so hardcore it’s funny. On purpose.
A poignant tale of all the darkness and light in life – sad and happy and true.
Antonio Banderas won the Cannes 2019 Best Actor Award for his performance here. And I can see why with his humble sincerity a warmth felt through the screen.
The overriding feeling I got from this film was grateful: life can be cruel, but it can also be kind.
A film that starts off one way, then evolves into something else so the film’s like a journey into a way of thinking or a thought that creeps up. Brilliant.
SPECIAL MENTIONS if you’re still looking for something to watch, try this 4-star list:
I’ve been thinking about writing this article since watching the thought-provoking horror, Us (2019).
Featuring doppelgängers, the film shows the horror of a reflection taking the place of our self. Scary stuff. But what I enjoyed most about this film was the humour.
The film juxtaposes normal behaviour set in a bizarre world where a copy of self is killing all the other selves.
Seeing a family fighting for their lives to compete to sit in the front seat of the car, the winner based on who has killed the most people/doppelgängers? Hilarious.
There’s also the additional delight of husband Gabe with a tissue stuck up his bloody nostril stating things like, ‘Almost looks like some kind of fucked-up art instalment.’
Director, writer and producer Jordan Peele states, “Horror and comedy are both great ways of exposing how we feel about things […] The comedy that emerges from a tense moment or scene in a horror film is necessary for cleaning the emotional palate, to release the tension. It gives your audience an opportunity to emotionally catch up and get prepared for the next run of terror.”1
Winston Duke really nailed the father character, Gabe; and I appreciated this layer of bizarre humour to lighten the strange – as Jorden states above, to, ‘clean the palate’.
But what does this ‘clean the palate’ actually mean?
And what is it about gallows humour that I find so funny?
An article published in Nature Reviews / Neuroscience, ‘The Neural Basis of Humour Processing’ (Pascal Vrticka, et al (2013)) concludes there are, ‘two core processes of humour appreciation: incongruity detection and resolution (the cognitive component); and a feeling of mirth or reward (the emotional component). Whereas the cognitive component seems to rely principally on activity in the [temporo-occipito-parietal junction] TOPJ, the emotional component appears to involve mesocorticolimbic dopaminergic pathways and the amygdala.’ 2
Yu-Chen Chan, et al summarize and further research the comprehension-elaboration theory of humour in their article, ‘Segregating the comprehension and elaboration processing of verbal jokes: An fMRI study’ (2012)3. Highlighting that ‘not all situations involving the detection and resolution of incongruities are humorous.’
They go on to quote Wyer and Collin’s comprehension-elaboration theory of humor (1992), where ‘The elaboration follows comprehension, involves the conscious generation of inferences of features not made explicit during comprehension as well as further thoughts stimulated by the newly understood situation, and elicits the unconscious or conscious feeling of amusement. These elaborations effectively involve appraising the stimulus event for their humourous content.
The amount of humour elicited is a function of the amount of elaboration of the event and its implications that occur subsequent to its reinterpretation.
The affective feeling of humor results from, and may overlap with continued elaboration of the event.’
So, humour in the setting of a horror evokes further elaboration not just because of the incongruent, it’s the nature of the incongruent: normality in a setting of the horrific.
The elaboration, further cognition of the joke makes the humour darkly funny.
In the setting of a horror film, there’s also a layering to dark humour that sparks the cognitive on the foundation of a previously evoked response, like fear.
As stated in the article, ‘The role of the amygdala in human fear: automatic detection of threat’ (Ohman. A (2005))4, ‘Behavioral data suggest that fear stimuli automatically activate fear and capture attention. This effect is likely to be mediated by a subcortical brain network centered on the amygdala […] When the stimulus conditions allow conscious processing, the amygdala response to feared stimuli is enhanced and a cortical network that includes the anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula is activated. However, the initial amygdala response to a fear-relevant but non-feared stimulus (e.g. pictures of spiders for a snake phobic) disappears with conscious processing and the cortical network is not recruited. Instead there is activation of the dorsolateral and orbitofrontal cortices that appears to inhibit the amygdala response. The data suggest that activation of the amygdala is mediated by a subcortical pathway, which passes through the superior colliculi and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus before accessing the amygdala, and which operates on low spatial frequency information.’
This is interesting with the view that further processing of a scene in a scary film, provoked by an incongruent behaviour, will break the activation of the amygdala and be, ‘mediated by a subcortical pathway, which passes through the superior colliculi and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus’ and would give the effect of tension relief (‘cleansing the palate’) and therefore, humour.
The article goes on to describe the activation of the fear response, like increased heart-rate and respiration (as we’ve all experienced in particularly scary movies): ‘The amygdala consists of several separate cell groups (nuclei), which receive input from many different brain areas. Highly processed sensory information from various cortical areas reaches the amygdala through its lateral and basolateral nuclei. In turn, these nuclei project to the central nucleus of the amygdala, which then projects to hypothalamic and brainstem target areas that directly mediate specific signs of fear and anxiety.’
You can imagine sitting in the cinema, immersed in a scary scene that has evoked the fear response: the rapid heart-beat, sitting on the edge-of-your-seat. That automatic response has kicked in.
So, those jumps you get in a horror are from that ingrained automatic response – like a reflex.
With conscious processing the fear is either enhanced through a clever script that gives layers to the idea of the horror (mediated through the amygdala), or is consciously processed as being, just a film (activation of the dorsolateral and orbitofrontal cortices that appears to inhibit the amygdala response): this isn’t real.
So either the data is further processed, where, ‘a cortical network that includes the anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula is activated.’
Or isn’t: ‘the initial amygdala response to a fear-relevant but non-feared stimulus (e.g. pictures of spiders for a snake phobic) disappears with conscious processing and the cortical network is not recruited.’
I think dark humour occurs somewhere in this cognition. In the further elaboration.
The fear response is already activated, through something that automatically evokes the fear-response, doppelgängers for example; then the data is further analysed when the setting is incongruent to the behaviour of the character, leading to a release of tension on the background of an already evoked fear response. With further cognition and elaboration the incongruent is resolved by processing through memories, past experiences, so the data is personally related in the context of a horror making the humour: darkly funny.
So, humour instead of a fear response including that extra processing leads to tension release and to a layered emotional response giving a fear response, mirth, therefore creating dark humour that tickles because of its complexity, its, elaboration.
But dark humour isn’t just humour in horror.
Dark humour can be satire. Dark humour can be about a cop trying to perform a dance in memory of his lost mother… At her funeral.
I recently reviewed the film, Thunder Road (2019), finding the performance and script from writer/director/lead, Jim Cummings genius. I’m still giggling about this cop falling apart because the character is so sincere and so tragic, it’s funny.
Jim was interviewed on a Podcast by Giles Alderson, and he talks about his intention to straddle both the tragic and humour of this cop having a breakdown, stating the audience will reward you when more than one lobe of the brain is engaged.5
The writing and performance of this film is brilliant because of the empathy evoked by seeing this guy grieving against the incongruity of his abnormal behaviour.
It’s the processing involved while seeing this super-nice guy, doing his absolute best in the worst of circumstances, then just lose his grip that tickles: standing, about to throw a child’s school desk, the teacher subtly pocketing the school safety-scissors included.
His mother is dead, his siblings don’t show at the funeral, his wife has left him, his daughter can’t stand him and is acting out, making statements like, ‘I hope I get mum’s boobs.’ And his job as a cop is emotionally draining and stressful.
His life is eating him alive.
But Jim continues to try to do the right thing only to end up with ripped pants.
Don’t get me wrong, the humour here is subtle and complex – like the way Jim is described, ‘Everyone grieves differently. Everyone’s unique.’
You can just see it – how the nice people describe someone losing the plot at a funeral.
I’m still giggling because the film shows how difficult life can be and how ridiculous.
So based on the same principle of processing the incongruent on the foundation of a fear response, here the emotional centre is engaged, in empathy for this guy at his mother’s funeral.
The humour is based on the incongruent because this guy is not functioning as a normal human being.
Then the nature of his behaviour is elaborated, because of the sadness and tragedy and empathy for this guy doing his absolute best.
The sadness and tragedy is modified by the incongruent behaviour, leading to further cognition, coming back as humour on a foundation of sadness that leads to elaboration creating that dark humour.
It. Just. TICKLES.
Taking the idea further: if there’s not enough tension for humour to release through incongruity, or if the difference isn’t enough; and if there’s no attachment to the character (leading to further elaboration), the attempt at humour will miss the mark.
The response will be flat: it’s just more data that flows through, marking time.
And if the humour doesn’t require further processing, and really misses that tension relief, it becomes simple. Like slapstick. And that’s if there’s a good performance from the actor.
If not, the end result will turn the audience against the storyline because the film will be a boring experience or the laughter will be directed at the film, not with it.
Watching a film that gets dark humour just right, for me, is a genuine pleasure – who can forget the gloriously funny, bad luck of, O. B Jackson (James Parks) in The Hateful Eight (2016)?!
Tarantino is definitely one of those writers and directors who knows how mix up the violent, the unexpected warmth and intellect with the incongruent.
Think about the relentless violence in John Wick 3 (2019) that saturates to the extent it’s funny.
It’s the unexpected bloody action happening to a well-liked character that absorbs with the incongruent of a deadly killer who loves his dog making John Wick a memorable and likable character adding those touches of joyful dark humour.
I acknowledge that not everyone enjoys this style of (sometimes bloody) humour – and there’s further research about the different theories of humour; think of humour used as aggression (and why people will feel superior and laugh at a movie, perhaps) and humour used in sexual selection (I found that funny too! Maybe we should go out…).
As a side note, the sexual selection theory is a concept well illustrated in the Coen Brothers’ film, Burn After Reading (2008), with the character Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) taking online matches to the movies to see if they laugh at the same joke.
A nice illustration and frankly, not a bad filtering method to find the right partner.
Whether you like dark humour or not, I’m sure all would agree that those added complicated interactions of cognition and emotion make watching a film a more rewarding experience, and one that certainly keeps me coming back for more.
2. Vrticka P, Black J. M. and Reiss A. L. 2013 ‘The Neural Basis of Humour Processing’ Nature Reviews / Neuroscience, Science and Society PERSPECTIVES 14 860 – 868.
3. Chan Y, Chou T, Chen, H and Liang Kl 2012 ‘Segregating the comprehension and elaboration processing of verbal jokes: An fMRI study’ NeuroImage Dec, 61: 899-906.
4. Ohman. A, 2005 ‘The role of the amygdala in human fear: automatic detection of threat’ Psychoneuroendocrinology, 10: 953-958.
5. Giles Alderson (2019) ‘Jim Cummings On Writing, Directing and Starring in Thunder Road’, The Filmakers Podcast May 29, available at: apple.co/2EydVIz
It’s a mixed bag of top 10 films this year, with a top-heavy favourtism for the thriller! From the funny-sweet, Hunt for the Wilderpeople to the ultimate crime thriller, Sicario *
I have to say the biggest stand-out for 2016: Director Denis Villeneuve. More Denis, we want more!
Coming in at number 10 is the New Zealander Comedy / Drama that stole the world’s heart: tongue-in-cheek and heartfelt where the characters are able to take a laugh at themselves ‘cause it’s all heart bro.
At number 9 is a local Drama based on a day-in-a-life in the Melbourne suburb of Footscray.
It would have been easy to get bogged down in the melancholy, but there’s humour here, the focus on the good: a poem written to a beautiful girl in a bookshop, drummers tapping out a heartbeat with the dance of a local in appreciation, the expression of graffiti and the love of a dog.
Pawno shows life in all its complications with the simplicity of a leaky kettle or a favourite mug.
Where Leonardo Di Caprio finally won his first Oscar, and for good reason.
There is a real authenticity here, thanks to Di Caprio, but director, Alejandro has given the film something almost mystical. Nature untouched, is a bit like magic. The Native Americans believed in the will of the trees and the wind, and I think Alejandro managed to capture some of this magic. Not an easy feat and worth watching.
My favourite director of this year Denis Villeneuve has given his Midas touch to a film that really could have fallen flat. The insight Villeneuve has managed to show of Dr. Bank’s character is astounding. If only for this aspect, I enjoyed the film. Then combine the incredible story, soundtrack and pace with that extra flavour that makes the characters so believable, you’ve got a winning film.
I can understand how this documentary, directed and produced by Roger Ross Williams, has won so many audience awards: Telluride Mountainfilm Festival, San Francisco International Film Festival, Full Frame Film Festival and the list goes on…
I laughed, I cried, I smiled and I learnt something not only about Owen and his battle with autism, I also found an opportunity to reflect on my own life journey.
Set in Inebolu, a Black Sea village 600 kilometres from Istanbul, Mustang is about the freedom of five young sisters with wild hair trailing down their backs, with a glance and an innocent smile that can lead to so much trouble.
As her first feature film, Deniz Gamze Erguven has given us a story that feels like it should already have been told, and I congratulate this fresh view of life that is usually hidden behind closed doors.
Director James Wan is genius in his use of not only the soundtrack, but also the trickery of shadows, slips in time, old toys; a focus on the eyes or a terrifying portrait brought to life. Seemingly simple devises, but used so well.
There’s a journey here. An invitation to take hold of a hand – a, Gotcha,then I’ll let you go a bit… then, I gotcha again: This time, I gotcha good.
I liked this film because it went beyond all expectations. The story just kept unfolding to its bloody conclusion. I couldn’t look away: cringing, gasping, hoping and ultimately smiling contently at a well thought-out conclusion. Love a good crime thriller!
There’s not a lot of action here. But the dialogue between the characters is hugely entertaining. The depth of thought put into the characters: Samuel L. Jackson as Major Marquis Warren, Walton Goggins as Sheriff Chris Mannix and Jennifer Jason Leigh as Daisy Domergue was particularly impressive. And the not so subtle gallows humour and O. B’s bad luck is gloriously funny. I had a ball watching this film – good fun!
I couldn’t fault this film. The story, characters, soundtrack, cinematography and editing all combined to create tension and to keep the audience guessing.
If the violence didn’t add to the story, then it wasn’t included. Clever devises used by director Denis Villeneuve used the imagination of the audience to piece the action together giving this film it’s true brilliance. If you haven’t already, watch this film! You’re in for a real treat.
* I know, I know, Sicario was released end of 2015, and I do ask for poetic license being my first ‘best of the year’ list for the website. Being my first reviewed film to earn 5 stars, I couldn’t resist Sicario, at the top, in all its crowning crime-thriller glory.
Despite all the horrors criminals perpetrate, despite how terrifying a real gangster, mobster or murderer truly can be, one thing is certain: when it comes to movies, we as a people love crime. There is something intrinsically interesting about getting into the heads of degenerates as they break the law and seek ways to avoid getting caught.
It’s no surprise then that True Crime stories are some of the most well-received films. Some are well remembered, while others are unjustly forgotten. With a new generation of viewers, there’s some real value to be gained by looking back and thinking about just what is still worth watching.
“GoodFellas” (1990)
No matter how many times I see “GoodFellas,” it remains one of my favorites. I don’t mean to suggest it was underrated in its time either—ratings for the film are superb overall. But today, over twenty years later, new audiences may not have heard of the movie much less seen it. For that reason, I list it first.
“GoodFellas” is not the original story about working for the mob (others existed before it), but it is based on the biography of Henry Hill, a former mobster who is eventually forced to turn in his friends and bosses to save himself and his wife. Of course, there’s much more to the story than that. “GoodFellas” gives some excellent insight into what it was like to be a Mafioso, both the good and the bad.
“Heavenly Creatures” (1994)
Our next film is perhaps a little stranger. Based on a well-known murder in 1954 known as the Parker-Hulme murder case, the story follows Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme as they conspire to commit (and then naturally follow through) murder. Their target is Pauline’s mother.
While this is another film that received praise, it was actually a New Zealand film, which isn’t surprising considering the original murder took place in New Zealand. And although the center of the origin story is murder, the film focuses much more on the development of the two protagonists’ relationship as things slowly get worse.
“In Cold Blood” (1967)
One of the biggest challenges in keeping good movies alive is the huge difference in production value between now and then. This is certainly true for “In Cold Blood,” with its fiftieth birthday just around the corner. The entire film is black and white, so it definitely has that old movie look to it. But make no mistake: the use of black and white is entirely intentional.
Like “GoodFellas,” this film is based on a book that was written about true events—in this case, the murder of the Clutter family. Perry Smith and Dick Hickock conspire to rob the Clutters’ house, but their crime instead escalates into a quadruple murder which leads them to flee the country. Their eventual return leads to their arrest and conviction, but not before some very dramatic interrogations.
Contributor: Caroline loves true crime stories, whether they’re depicted on screen or through audio alone. As an entertainment enthusiast and internet security specialist, the minds of criminals fascinate her. If you’re interested in some of her other works, check out Secure Thoughts or Culture Coverage.
still managed to get to ‘Barbenheimer’ that took over the world there for a while. All I can say is I’m glad I managed to source a pink hair accessory for the Barbie premiere. It was a very pink affair. And a surprisingly refreshing feminist message that did balance in the end. But like everyone, I’ve never seen a film so blunt – ‘I’m a man without power, does that make me a woman?’
