LaughingTigerIMDb
Joined Dec 2016
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews24
LaughingTigerIMDb's rating
At first glance, this film has all the fixin's to look like a light drama/comedy. The viewer will be charmed by 1930s America with perfectly timed one-liners from all of the actors using trained voice, stylized by picturesque settings of a lovely Briarwood home and characters that look like they just stepped out of a band box.
Romance is almost inevitable when the viewers first see Felix, whose love for jazz and lighthearted conversation and moments enter the Lemp home and captivate the four daughters.
But wait. This little film takes a dark turn, and suddenly the viewer isn't in lala land anymore. That's what makes this film surprisingly good. There's more to it than meets the eye. The actors themselves begin to evolve that the troubles their characters all go through. It's no wonder this film received a nod at the Academy Awards, for all of its twists and turns.
It's not that I'm the sappy-hearted-the-guy-must-get-the-girl type of reviewer. I'm more of a did-a-film-meet-all-of-my-emotional-triggers type of reviewer.
Romance is almost inevitable when the viewers first see Felix, whose love for jazz and lighthearted conversation and moments enter the Lemp home and captivate the four daughters.
But wait. This little film takes a dark turn, and suddenly the viewer isn't in lala land anymore. That's what makes this film surprisingly good. There's more to it than meets the eye. The actors themselves begin to evolve that the troubles their characters all go through. It's no wonder this film received a nod at the Academy Awards, for all of its twists and turns.
It's not that I'm the sappy-hearted-the-guy-must-get-the-girl type of reviewer. I'm more of a did-a-film-meet-all-of-my-emotional-triggers type of reviewer.
It seems most who are complaining about this film found it boring and for some reason, inaccurate. Let's set the record straight. This film is about a pocket of time in history, notably in the Basque region of Spain when the Spanish Inquisition senselessly accused people of witchcraft - without even knowing what witchcraft was.
This fictional story (based on history) is about six young women who are living their lives in a carefree culture where they work throughout the day and play together in their free time. By play, it means singing, dancing, walking through the forest, and amusing themselves in very innocent, girlish ways.
I feel like a brief lesson in the history of witchcraft must be given to make the film make sense. It seems anyone who was partaking in pagan customs was deemed a threat to the Church. The term witch was reserved for wiser, older people who could help the community with healing, and in this crossover period of time during the Inquisition, most people were already being influenced to think there was something unethical about it.
How these girls were captured, incarcerated, and treated during their imprisonment do align with historical records. They were pressed for information about their habits, and were put through tests to satisfy whether or not they were witches.
It needs to be said that women of the time were often persecuted, which is noted in the film why it was mainly women and not the men. One remarks that the men were away sailing. This is one reason, but also women outliving their husbands, or men going to war were other reasons why the womenfolk were the ones who remained at home, practicing old ways, which was the very problem according to those who were conducting the witch hunts.
Just like in history, the girls are treated poorly, and a few were even tortured.
The story intertwined with history is the desperation of trying to free themselves and taking great measures to do so, by inviting the Inquisitor to an open environment where he can watch them perform a ritual.
What happens is not too shocking, but over all this film is meant to transport the viewer to a time when women felt all but lost to take drastic measures to save their lives.
I would have liked to see a bit more accuracy in pagan attitudes. One character describes a witch as being evil, which wouldn't have made sense since witchery was considered a benefit to the community. Only Christian influence would have had her saying this, and to know this, she would have had to been aware of Christianity, which all six claim they did not.
The film is otherwise beautifully shot, and is a relaxing film to enjoy with dark shots and candlelight throughout. If you're looking for a film about spell crafting or other mystical happenings the are incorrectly associated with witchcraft, this film isn't for you. It's merely a point of time in history to show what may have happened in Basque during the Burning Times.
This fictional story (based on history) is about six young women who are living their lives in a carefree culture where they work throughout the day and play together in their free time. By play, it means singing, dancing, walking through the forest, and amusing themselves in very innocent, girlish ways.
I feel like a brief lesson in the history of witchcraft must be given to make the film make sense. It seems anyone who was partaking in pagan customs was deemed a threat to the Church. The term witch was reserved for wiser, older people who could help the community with healing, and in this crossover period of time during the Inquisition, most people were already being influenced to think there was something unethical about it.
How these girls were captured, incarcerated, and treated during their imprisonment do align with historical records. They were pressed for information about their habits, and were put through tests to satisfy whether or not they were witches.
It needs to be said that women of the time were often persecuted, which is noted in the film why it was mainly women and not the men. One remarks that the men were away sailing. This is one reason, but also women outliving their husbands, or men going to war were other reasons why the womenfolk were the ones who remained at home, practicing old ways, which was the very problem according to those who were conducting the witch hunts.
Just like in history, the girls are treated poorly, and a few were even tortured.
The story intertwined with history is the desperation of trying to free themselves and taking great measures to do so, by inviting the Inquisitor to an open environment where he can watch them perform a ritual.
What happens is not too shocking, but over all this film is meant to transport the viewer to a time when women felt all but lost to take drastic measures to save their lives.
I would have liked to see a bit more accuracy in pagan attitudes. One character describes a witch as being evil, which wouldn't have made sense since witchery was considered a benefit to the community. Only Christian influence would have had her saying this, and to know this, she would have had to been aware of Christianity, which all six claim they did not.
The film is otherwise beautifully shot, and is a relaxing film to enjoy with dark shots and candlelight throughout. If you're looking for a film about spell crafting or other mystical happenings the are incorrectly associated with witchcraft, this film isn't for you. It's merely a point of time in history to show what may have happened in Basque during the Burning Times.
The Scoop is one of those films that really requires the viewer to be alert and held captivated in an otherwise very dialogue-dependent story.
This is where you have many people fawning over the costuming, hair and makeup, and accents from the cast and crew. But it takes more than that to take a relatively unoriginal concept of 'talk, before they talk first' that the entire film is centred around. We all know the story: Prince Andrew had a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein that churned the rumour mills that he was partaking in illegal sexual activity with Epstein's trafficked young girls. It's easily Google-able and you can watch the original interview just about anywhere online.
With that said, the film itself clings to the nip-it-in-the-bud concept, which is not clever or unusual. Many journalists and news outlets use this tactic all the time to get a story. The film creates a buzz around the fact that they came up with this concept as if it's brilliant and has never been done before.
All the while, you are watching a film that must keep a bored audience attentive. This means there is a lot of hustle, and by that I mean physical hustling. People marching from one office to another. People walking quickly through crowded areas. People outright running to catch a great photo or trying to make it to the bus. Since there is no action, the film resorts to quick feet for just about all of the film to make it seem like it has its own brand of action. Coupled with the running and fast-walking is the dramatic music. In my opinion, the score is amazing. It almost seems wasted in this film because it only seems to shine during the running-in-heels moments.
As for the cast, you can't go wrong with Rufus Sewell. He must have thought he hit the jackpot to be caked with makeup to sit stiffly in a chair or standing stiffly in a room, barely using much effort to recreate the bumbling fool that Andrew is. Is the acting amazing? Maybe. But in my opinion, the dark contact lenses that the used on Gillian Anderson and the grey wig on Rufus Sewell to me isn't art. They were used because they had to, and the actors no doubt felt like their characters came alive as soon as they saw themselves in the mirror. Speaking lines is not great acting. In this case, it's mimicking who you are supposed to be. So even saying nothing at all can be construed as good acting if the person has the look and mannerisms down pat. Most of the actors knew the assignment and delivered it well.
But by and large, it's still an unoriginal concept of how journalists capture a story (which is based on reality, not from the film's writers), made to be a whole lot more interesting than I think it deserved to be.
If you already know the Andrew story, saw the interview, then nothing will surprise you with this film. The little side story of Sam and her balance between work and home life was peppered in to give the viewer something more, but was that even original or enough? Shades of Erin Brockovich were to be had with Sam, a single mother in leopard-print high heels, whose take-no-prisoners attitude is what ultimately gets the BBC their story. We cheer for the underdog, and Sam certainly was it.
The charge is led by women, and one whippet. The target is a perverted royal who didn't see it coming. In the end, we have great hair and makeup, costuming, and music. Forcing us to find it exciting was the tricky part, and I think that's why I gave it a 7, along with so many others who likely felt the same.
This is where you have many people fawning over the costuming, hair and makeup, and accents from the cast and crew. But it takes more than that to take a relatively unoriginal concept of 'talk, before they talk first' that the entire film is centred around. We all know the story: Prince Andrew had a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein that churned the rumour mills that he was partaking in illegal sexual activity with Epstein's trafficked young girls. It's easily Google-able and you can watch the original interview just about anywhere online.
With that said, the film itself clings to the nip-it-in-the-bud concept, which is not clever or unusual. Many journalists and news outlets use this tactic all the time to get a story. The film creates a buzz around the fact that they came up with this concept as if it's brilliant and has never been done before.
All the while, you are watching a film that must keep a bored audience attentive. This means there is a lot of hustle, and by that I mean physical hustling. People marching from one office to another. People walking quickly through crowded areas. People outright running to catch a great photo or trying to make it to the bus. Since there is no action, the film resorts to quick feet for just about all of the film to make it seem like it has its own brand of action. Coupled with the running and fast-walking is the dramatic music. In my opinion, the score is amazing. It almost seems wasted in this film because it only seems to shine during the running-in-heels moments.
As for the cast, you can't go wrong with Rufus Sewell. He must have thought he hit the jackpot to be caked with makeup to sit stiffly in a chair or standing stiffly in a room, barely using much effort to recreate the bumbling fool that Andrew is. Is the acting amazing? Maybe. But in my opinion, the dark contact lenses that the used on Gillian Anderson and the grey wig on Rufus Sewell to me isn't art. They were used because they had to, and the actors no doubt felt like their characters came alive as soon as they saw themselves in the mirror. Speaking lines is not great acting. In this case, it's mimicking who you are supposed to be. So even saying nothing at all can be construed as good acting if the person has the look and mannerisms down pat. Most of the actors knew the assignment and delivered it well.
But by and large, it's still an unoriginal concept of how journalists capture a story (which is based on reality, not from the film's writers), made to be a whole lot more interesting than I think it deserved to be.
If you already know the Andrew story, saw the interview, then nothing will surprise you with this film. The little side story of Sam and her balance between work and home life was peppered in to give the viewer something more, but was that even original or enough? Shades of Erin Brockovich were to be had with Sam, a single mother in leopard-print high heels, whose take-no-prisoners attitude is what ultimately gets the BBC their story. We cheer for the underdog, and Sam certainly was it.
The charge is led by women, and one whippet. The target is a perverted royal who didn't see it coming. In the end, we have great hair and makeup, costuming, and music. Forcing us to find it exciting was the tricky part, and I think that's why I gave it a 7, along with so many others who likely felt the same.