Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

When it comes to intense movies Vertigo, The Shining and maybe even the finale of Heathers would spring to most peoples minds, but WAOVW has a whole other sort of intensity, an intensity in which you are sure that these people are not real but cant shake that feeling about how real they seem and that coupled with the realism of the characters makes you feel isolated with them for two hours.

Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Sandy Dennis and George Segal as two married couples neither as idyllic as the marriages that we associate with the sixties era (Mike and Carol were perfect.......) And that's where our story begins.

The story isn't really a story it's more a general idea: Older, unhinged couple have younger couple over for a 'get to know you' session. This session quickly extends to something a little bit unconventional: Nothing much happens. We don't seem to get the impression that the characters of Martha (Taylor) and George (Burton) are going to be completley okay at the end of the film, however maybe Nick (Segal) and Honey (Dennis) nwill take the lessons they learnt from Martha and George and create a better future for themselves. Some light at the end of the tunnel i suppose.

I loved this movie. The performances from all involved were absolutely.... electrifying. However the weakest link was George Segal, that's not to say he was bad (i really liked him) it's just that when you are watching a career best from Liz Taylor, a downright scary performance by Burton and an oddball Sandy Dennis you're bound to get lost in the midst.

Like that other cryptically titled classic A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) WAOVW serves more as an intense relationship study rather than a conventional film. And believe me it is all the better for it. It is one of those movies in which you are immediately immersed due to strong performances from the get go and intense cinematography, if you get up during this movie i'll give you 50 bucks. No joke.

WAOVW is a film in which you will be deeply involved in until the credits roll around, then you will stand up in a daze and wonder what you have just seen. In much the same way that Nick and Honey must have when they left George and Martha at the end of the movie.

"What a dump! Hey, what's that from?" Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf.

Is the Planet of the apes dated?

A friend and i were having a debate the other day over the original Planet of the Apes (1968). I thought it was pretty good considering the limited effects at the time. She thought it was awful.

I'll tell you what i think
- The effects aren't that great. However, considering the era they're very innovative.
-i never did care for the acting (maybe Charlton Heston just doesn't appeal to me)
-the masks are great even by today's standards and look far more realistic than the supposedly superior CGI
- the technicolor looks painted on sometimes. Which is something i can't stand in any movie.
- my friend can't see things from another perspective.

I saw this a while ago (although mycrash course in it was received from a parody by The Simpsons), i didn't even like it, i was a 10 year old who thought that movies began and ended with Star Wars (1977). But now i think differently: a film doesn't have to be a work of art to leave an impression. It just has to stand out. Whether it be for the good or bad things about it.
This movie stands out because the twist was amazingly unexpected at the time (nowadays everyone knows it but what do you expect?) The masks were brilliant, it holds one of the most famous lines in film history ('get your paws of me you damn dirty ape!') and one of the sequels contains Sal Mineo's final performance. Although that part's probably only important to a select number of people (which is unfortunate because he was a great actor).

I think to her it's just old. She isn't used to the style of acting Charlton Heston adopts but most of all she isn't used to the overall  method of filming. It was a different world then, the 60s were trapped between the conservative 'innocent' fifties ideals and the realism of the 60s/70s don't BS us era. They tried to keep the more questionable nature of just about any film under wraps but still keep it realistic. That was where i think she didn't like it. She wasn't sure what it wanted to portray, I don't blame my friend for hating this milestone in film making, in fact i feel sorry that she consistently looks for things in old films to take shots at, never looking for the positives.

I call these people idiots. I am hoping to amend her ways and introduce her to a film she knows nothing about just to see her reaction: Raging Bull (1980). I have a feeling that she'll be able to appreciate it much more for it's beautiful cinematography, either that or she'll scoff the minute she see's the black and white. After all, this is the same person who thought Yogi Bear (2011) was clever.

"oh my god i was wrong it was earth all along!" Troy Mcclure (Phil Hartman) The Simpsons.