Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Lipstick (1976) A controversial rape-and-revenge thriller directed by Lamont Johnson. Despite being panned by critics upon its release, the film has since developed a significant cult following. Margaux Hemingway, in her film debut, the 1970s supermodel played Chris McCormick, a high-fashion model who seeks justice after being assaulted. While... her beauty was praised, critics widely criticized her acting as stiff and unconvincing. Margaux’s 14-year-old sister also made her debut, playing Chris's younger sister Kathy. In a reversal of expectations, Mariel received critical acclaim and a Golden Globe nomination, which reportedly caused professional tension between the sisters. The film featured established stars including Anne Bancroft as a determined district attorney and Chris Sarandon as the brutal music teacher. The film was largely a failure at the time of its release for several reasons. Critics like Roger Ebert and those at Variety condemned the film as "cynical exploitation," arguing it used a serious subject to pander to voyeuristic interests through graphic nudity and violence. Reviewers found the narrative uneven, moving from a glossy fashion-world drama to a brutal courtroom procedural, and finally to a "Rambo-like" vigilante ending that many felt lacked credibility. (Personally, this is exactly what I like about it). Its depiction of a victim taking the law into her own hands after a legal failure was highly polarizing in 1976. Despite its initial failure, Lipstick gained cult status over the following decades. Modern viewers often view the film as an early, if flawed, attempt to address the "real horror story" of the judicial system's failure to protect women. The film is remembered for its slick 1970s Los Angeles aesthetic and its avant-garde synthesizer soundtrack by French musician Michel Polnareff, which became a disco hit in its own right. Filmmakers such as Quentin Tarantino and Edgar Wright have cited the film as a notable example of the genre, further solidifying its place in cult cinema history.show more

Tom😈Loves❤️Horror😱

11,423 subscribers

100,285 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Komedi Sanat Sağlık & İyilik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

A box-office failure at the time of its release, MARNIE ('64) has received a critical re-evaluation since. Many feel it is a work of art that tackles disturbing themes in an experimental fashion, and cite Tippi Hedren's performance as one of the finest in any Hitchcock film.

A box-office failure at the time of its release, MARNIE ('64) has received a critical re-evaluation since. Many feel it is a work of art that tackles disturbing themes in an experimental fashion, and cite Tippi Hedren's performance as one of the finest in any Hitchcock film.

TCM

36,043 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Class of 1984 (1982) Class of 1984 was a commercial success relative to its modest $3.2–$4.3 million budget, earning over $6–$7 million at the box office. It achieved broader financial success through the home video and cable markets, estimated at $15–$20 million in total. The film is celebrated as a definitive cult classic of the early 1980s. Its "video nasty" reputation stemmed from extreme violence, including a graphic table saw death and a brutal rape scene, which nearly earned it an X rating. Modern audiences value it as a bleak, nihilistic time capsule of the early '80s punk aesthetic and urban decay. It is famous for featuring a young, pre-Family Ties Michael J. Fox in a supporting role. Its status is solidified by high-end boutique releases, such as the Shout! Factory Collector’s Edition. The film was directly influenced by A Clockwork Orange (1971) and Blackboard Jungle (1955). In turn, it influenced several "school violence" and vigilante films: It spawned two sci-fi-themed sequels: Class of 1999 (1990) and Class of 1999 II: The Substitute (1994). Films like The Principal (1987), The Substitute (1996), and Class of Nuke 'Em High (1986) are often cited as spiritual successors or parodies. Timothy Van Patten, who played the menacing gang leader Peter Stegman, is now better known as an Emmy-winning director of prestigious series like The Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire. Van Patten personally wrote and performed the piano concerto his character plays in the film, a scene often cited as a highlight that revealed Stegman's complex, "yuppie" background. While director Mark Lester expected Van Patten to become a major acting star following his "riveting" performance, Van Patten eventually found his greatest success behind the camera. His portrayal remains iconic for its use of low-angle shots to maximize his threatening presence despite his clean-cut appearance.

Class of 1984 (1982) Class of 1984 was a commercial success relative to its modest $3.2–$4.3 million budget, earning over $6–$7 million at the box office. It achieved broader financial success through the home video and cable markets, estimated at $15–$20 million in total. The film is celebrated as a definitive cult classic of the early 1980s. Its "video nasty" reputation stemmed from extreme violence, including a graphic table saw death and a brutal rape scene, which nearly earned it an X rating. Modern audiences value it as a bleak, nihilistic time capsule of the early '80s punk aesthetic and urban decay. It is famous for featuring a young, pre-Family Ties Michael J. Fox in a supporting role. Its status is solidified by high-end boutique releases, such as the Shout! Factory Collector’s Edition. The film was directly influenced by A Clockwork Orange (1971) and Blackboard Jungle (1955). In turn, it influenced several "school violence" and vigilante films: It spawned two sci-fi-themed sequels: Class of 1999 (1990) and Class of 1999 II: The Substitute (1994). Films like The Principal (1987), The Substitute (1996), and Class of Nuke 'Em High (1986) are often cited as spiritual successors or parodies. Timothy Van Patten, who played the menacing gang leader Peter Stegman, is now better known as an Emmy-winning director of prestigious series like The Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire. Van Patten personally wrote and performed the piano concerto his character plays in the film, a scene often cited as a highlight that revealed Stegman's complex, "yuppie" background. While director Mark Lester expected Van Patten to become a major acting star following his "riveting" performance, Van Patten eventually found his greatest success behind the camera. His portrayal remains iconic for its use of low-angle shots to maximize his threatening presence despite his clean-cut appearance.

Tom😈Loves❤️Horror😱

11,070 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

According to an interview that screenwriter Lawrence Wright gave to CBS in 2007, the film was a box-office failure upon its theatrical release, “but it was the most-rented movie in America after 9/11.” Wright also claimed that the initial release bombed because “Muslim and Arab protesters picketed the theaters. They were furious at being stereotyped as terrorists.” • The Siege

According to an interview that screenwriter Lawrence Wright gave to CBS in 2007, the film was a box-office failure upon its theatrical release, “but it was the most-rented movie in America after 9/11.” Wright also claimed that the initial release bombed because “Muslim and Arab protesters picketed the theaters. They were furious at being stereotyped as terrorists.” • The Siege

Love Classical Music and Movies 🎺🎻💖🎥🎬

196,006 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Audrey Hepburn, born in 1929, was one of Hollywood's most elegant and iconic actresses. Born in Belgium, she spent her childhood amidst the hardships of World War II. Her acting career brought her great fame, particularly with films such as Roman Holiday, Breakfast at Tiffany's, and Sabrina, which set her apart from other stars of her time thanks to her natural acting and understated beauty. She was also considered a style icon; in particular, her collaboration with Hubert de Givenchy holds a significant place in fashion history. Later, she participated in global humanitarian aid efforts as a UNICEF ambassador, earning immense respect for her philanthropic spirit. The 1957 film Funny Face is one of Audrey Hepburn's most entertaining and stylish films. In it, Hepburn played Jo Stockton, a smart and unassuming young woman working in a bookstore; Her life completely changed when she was discovered by a fashion magazine and brought to Paris. Starring alongside Fred Astaire, the film is notable for its dance scenes, music, and especially its details related to the world of fashion. Scenes on the streets of Paris, photo shoots, and Jo's "beatnik" style and defiant attitude towards fashion create a romantic and somewhat satirical atmosphere for the film; at the same time, it offers a fascinating story about art, fashion, and identity.

Audrey Hepburn, born in 1929, was one of Hollywood's most elegant and iconic actresses. Born in Belgium, she spent her childhood amidst the hardships of World War II. Her acting career brought her great fame, particularly with films such as Roman Holiday, Breakfast at Tiffany's, and Sabrina, which set her apart from other stars of her time thanks to her natural acting and understated beauty. She was also considered a style icon; in particular, her collaboration with Hubert de Givenchy holds a significant place in fashion history. Later, she participated in global humanitarian aid efforts as a UNICEF ambassador, earning immense respect for her philanthropic spirit. The 1957 film Funny Face is one of Audrey Hepburn's most entertaining and stylish films. In it, Hepburn played Jo Stockton, a smart and unassuming young woman working in a bookstore; Her life completely changed when she was discovered by a fashion magazine and brought to Paris. Starring alongside Fred Astaire, the film is notable for its dance scenes, music, and especially its details related to the world of fashion. Scenes on the streets of Paris, photo shoots, and Jo's "beatnik" style and defiant attitude towards fashion create a romantic and somewhat satirical atmosphere for the film; at the same time, it offers a fascinating story about art, fashion, and identity.

🎵💖Loves classical music🎻🎹

23,393 görüntüleme • 10 gün önce

Valentine (2001) 💘 Released on February 2, 2001, Valentine is a slasher film directed by Jamie Blanks and is loosely based on the 1996 novel by Tom Savage. Both follow a man who was cruelly humiliated by a group of women in the past and returns years later to seek revenge. In both versions, the victims receive threatening Valentine's Day cards before being targeted. Despite the film's financial success, it was critically panned for being a formulaic throwback to 1980s slashers during the post-Scream era. In the decades since its release, Valentine has gained a cult following among horror enthusiasts. Fans often praise its cherub-masked killer, "glossy" early-2000s aesthetic, and its shift toward a more serious, non-meta slasher style. This resurgence led to a prestigious Scream Factory Collector's Edition Blu-ray release in 2019.

Valentine (2001) 💘 Released on February 2, 2001, Valentine is a slasher film directed by Jamie Blanks and is loosely based on the 1996 novel by Tom Savage. Both follow a man who was cruelly humiliated by a group of women in the past and returns years later to seek revenge. In both versions, the victims receive threatening Valentine's Day cards before being targeted. Despite the film's financial success, it was critically panned for being a formulaic throwback to 1980s slashers during the post-Scream era. In the decades since its release, Valentine has gained a cult following among horror enthusiasts. Fans often praise its cherub-masked killer, "glossy" early-2000s aesthetic, and its shift toward a more serious, non-meta slasher style. This resurgence led to a prestigious Scream Factory Collector's Edition Blu-ray release in 2019.

Tom😈Loves❤️Horror😱

11,682 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Videodrome (1983) 🕯️📹 Released on February 4, 1983, “Videodrome” faced a difficult theatrical run due to its transgressive content but eventually found a massive second life through home video and high-quality restorations. The film opened in 600 theaters across North America. It debuted at number 8 on the box office charts, earning approximately $1.19 million in its opening weekend. It was a significant commercial "bomb," grossing a total of $2.12 million against a budget of roughly $5.95 million. Director David Cronenberg noted that the film was difficult to categorize, neither fitting clearly as an "art-house" film nor a standard "exploitation" horror flick. Universal Pictures executives later expressed regret for giving it a wide release rather than treating it as a specialized art film. Home video was instrumental in transitioning “Videodrome” from a financial failure to a revered cult classic. The film was released on VHS and Betamax in the 1980s by companies like CIC Video. In the UK, early versions were heavily censored—cut by nearly three minutes—due to the "video nasty" moral panic of the era. The film's critical status was cemented with its inclusion in the Criterion Collection, which released a landmark DVD in 2004 and a Blu-ray in 2010. These editions featured the "unrated" version and extensive documentaries on its groundbreaking prosthetic effects. Arrow Video released a highly praised dual-format (Blu-ray/DVD) set in the UK with new restorations and archival content in 2015. New 4K restorations, approved by Cronenberg, were released to theaters and home media, further enhancing the film's "techno-surrealist" visuals for modern audiences. Today, the film is widely available for digital streaming on platforms like Peacock and for purchase through boutique labels.

Videodrome (1983) 🕯️📹 Released on February 4, 1983, “Videodrome” faced a difficult theatrical run due to its transgressive content but eventually found a massive second life through home video and high-quality restorations. The film opened in 600 theaters across North America. It debuted at number 8 on the box office charts, earning approximately $1.19 million in its opening weekend. It was a significant commercial "bomb," grossing a total of $2.12 million against a budget of roughly $5.95 million. Director David Cronenberg noted that the film was difficult to categorize, neither fitting clearly as an "art-house" film nor a standard "exploitation" horror flick. Universal Pictures executives later expressed regret for giving it a wide release rather than treating it as a specialized art film. Home video was instrumental in transitioning “Videodrome” from a financial failure to a revered cult classic. The film was released on VHS and Betamax in the 1980s by companies like CIC Video. In the UK, early versions were heavily censored—cut by nearly three minutes—due to the "video nasty" moral panic of the era. The film's critical status was cemented with its inclusion in the Criterion Collection, which released a landmark DVD in 2004 and a Blu-ray in 2010. These editions featured the "unrated" version and extensive documentaries on its groundbreaking prosthetic effects. Arrow Video released a highly praised dual-format (Blu-ray/DVD) set in the UK with new restorations and archival content in 2015. New 4K restorations, approved by Cronenberg, were released to theaters and home media, further enhancing the film's "techno-surrealist" visuals for modern audiences. Today, the film is widely available for digital streaming on platforms like Peacock and for purchase through boutique labels.

Tom😈Loves❤️Horror😱

16,931 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Angel (1984) Released on January 13, 1984, Angel is an American exploitation slasher thriller that became a defining "sleeper hit" of the 1980s. It was the first film released by New World Pictures after the studio was sold by its founder, Roger Corman. The film mixed a gritty, "sleazy" premise with a "found family" of colorful street characters, including an aging cowboy (Rory Calhoun) and a flamboyant drag queen (Dick Shawn). The blend of "Afterschool Special" sweetness and "sleaze-fest" violence created a jarring but memorable experience that helped the film stand out from typical 1980s slashers. Despite failing to open in the top five, Angel was a major financial success. It grossed $2.2 million in its opening weekend and stayed in the top ten for several months, eventually earning $17.5 million domestically. It was New World's highest-grossing release of 1984. The film thrived during the 1980s VHS boom, where its lurid cover art and exploitation themes helped it populate video store shelves. This popularity led to three sequels: Avenging Angel (1985), Angel III: The Final Chapter (1988), and Angel 4: Undercover (1994), though the latter two were straight-to-video releases. Today, Angel is considered a prime example of '80s "sleaze-fest" cinema with a surprising amount of heart. Its cult following is driven by its campy "instant characters," its unpretentious tone, and its depiction of a now-gone era of Hollywood Boulevard. Its enduring status is reflected in modern high-definition re-releases from boutique labels like Vinegar Syndrome, which released a dedicated "Angel Collection" Blu-ray set in 2020.

Angel (1984) Released on January 13, 1984, Angel is an American exploitation slasher thriller that became a defining "sleeper hit" of the 1980s. It was the first film released by New World Pictures after the studio was sold by its founder, Roger Corman. The film mixed a gritty, "sleazy" premise with a "found family" of colorful street characters, including an aging cowboy (Rory Calhoun) and a flamboyant drag queen (Dick Shawn). The blend of "Afterschool Special" sweetness and "sleaze-fest" violence created a jarring but memorable experience that helped the film stand out from typical 1980s slashers. Despite failing to open in the top five, Angel was a major financial success. It grossed $2.2 million in its opening weekend and stayed in the top ten for several months, eventually earning $17.5 million domestically. It was New World's highest-grossing release of 1984. The film thrived during the 1980s VHS boom, where its lurid cover art and exploitation themes helped it populate video store shelves. This popularity led to three sequels: Avenging Angel (1985), Angel III: The Final Chapter (1988), and Angel 4: Undercover (1994), though the latter two were straight-to-video releases. Today, Angel is considered a prime example of '80s "sleaze-fest" cinema with a surprising amount of heart. Its cult following is driven by its campy "instant characters," its unpretentious tone, and its depiction of a now-gone era of Hollywood Boulevard. Its enduring status is reflected in modern high-definition re-releases from boutique labels like Vinegar Syndrome, which released a dedicated "Angel Collection" Blu-ray set in 2020.

Tom😈Loves❤️Horror😱

87,122 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Black Christmas (1974) 🎄 This film is considered one of the most influential horror films ever made, often cited as the "mother" of the modern slasher genre. Despite a modest initial financial performance, it has achieved massive cultural impact and critical re-evaluation over the last 50 years. Produced on a budget of roughly $686,000, it was a major hit in its native Canada, becoming the third-highest-grossing Canadian film of its time. It initially struggled in the U.S. due to competition from The Godfather Part II, but eventually grossed over $4 million worldwide, cementing its status as a financial success. Upon release, critics largely dismissed it as "senseless mayhem" or "trash". However, modern reviews are overwhelmingly positive, with a 71% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and rankings on numerous "Best Horror Movie" lists by outlets like IndieWire and Esquire. Cultural Impact and Innovation The film pioneered several tropes that defined the 1980s slasher boom: The "Final Girl": Jess Bradford (Olivia Hussey) is recognized as one of the first "final girls" in horror. Unlike later iterations, she was sexually active and had full agency, challenging the "virginal survivor" trope. It introduced the Killer's POV tracking shots, the concept of a killer stalking a group of young women, and the "calls are coming from inside the house" plot device later famously used in “When a Stranger Calls”. Influence on “Halloween”: Director Bob Clark’s discussions with John Carpenter about a hypothetical Black Christmas sequel (involving a killer escaping a psychiatric ward on Halloween) directly inspired Carpenter's 1978 classic. Released just one year after Roe v. Wade, the film is praised for its progressive treatment of reproductive rights, as Jess remains steadfast in her decision to have an abortion despite pressure from her boyfriend. Fun Fact Director Bob Clark later directed the 1983 holiday classic “A Christmas Story”. While the two films are tonally opposites, they both remain essential viewing for the Christmas season.

Black Christmas (1974) 🎄 This film is considered one of the most influential horror films ever made, often cited as the "mother" of the modern slasher genre. Despite a modest initial financial performance, it has achieved massive cultural impact and critical re-evaluation over the last 50 years. Produced on a budget of roughly $686,000, it was a major hit in its native Canada, becoming the third-highest-grossing Canadian film of its time. It initially struggled in the U.S. due to competition from The Godfather Part II, but eventually grossed over $4 million worldwide, cementing its status as a financial success. Upon release, critics largely dismissed it as "senseless mayhem" or "trash". However, modern reviews are overwhelmingly positive, with a 71% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and rankings on numerous "Best Horror Movie" lists by outlets like IndieWire and Esquire. Cultural Impact and Innovation The film pioneered several tropes that defined the 1980s slasher boom: The "Final Girl": Jess Bradford (Olivia Hussey) is recognized as one of the first "final girls" in horror. Unlike later iterations, she was sexually active and had full agency, challenging the "virginal survivor" trope. It introduced the Killer's POV tracking shots, the concept of a killer stalking a group of young women, and the "calls are coming from inside the house" plot device later famously used in “When a Stranger Calls”. Influence on “Halloween”: Director Bob Clark’s discussions with John Carpenter about a hypothetical Black Christmas sequel (involving a killer escaping a psychiatric ward on Halloween) directly inspired Carpenter's 1978 classic. Released just one year after Roe v. Wade, the film is praised for its progressive treatment of reproductive rights, as Jess remains steadfast in her decision to have an abortion despite pressure from her boyfriend. Fun Fact Director Bob Clark later directed the 1983 holiday classic “A Christmas Story”. While the two films are tonally opposites, they both remain essential viewing for the Christmas season.

Tom😈Loves❤️Horror😱

23,369 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

* NEW FROM THE CHIRLA FILES * CHIRLA, the taxpayer-funded nonprofit that has been fomenting opposition to immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, owns a film production company that has produced a full-length feature. CHIRLA’s “beleaguered” Executive Director, Angelica Salas, is credited as the Executive Producer of the movie. Seems strange for a nonprofit, right? Pouring over its publicly available financial records, there appear to be a number of irregularities—though I do not have the expertise to form a definitive opinion about whether there was actual malfeasance. Here are the details. As background to CHIRLA’s film-making enterprise: In 2018, the organization produced a 20-minute short called “America, I Too,” which was shown at some film festivals. According to its website, this was “the second film in the series following the first short, ‘Know Your Rights’ created in 2007.” The video by that name that I found online is ten minutes long and has poor production values. CHIRLA incorporated its film company, called CHIRLA Liberty Film, LLC, in January 2019. It is entirely owned by the nonprofit, and its finances are consolidated in CHIRLA’s financial audits. The audit for the year ending June 30, 2019, lists film production costs in the amount of $242,413 and $28,764 from 2018, noting that they relate to the “various costs associated with the production of a film.” The audit, however, does not mention the existence of the film company. Strangely, CHIRLA’s Form 990 (the tax form filed by nonprofits with the IRS) for 2019 also does not reference either the company or the costs of film production. Every year beginning in 2019, CHIRLA’s audits state: “Upon completion of the film, the Organization will review its total revenue estimates from the film, which may result in a change in the rate of amortization and/or a write-down of the film production costs to fair value.” But confusingly, there are never any revenue estimates provided in any audit. The cost of the film production is simply listed as an asset each year. CHIRLA’s 2020 audit is the first to acknowledge the existence of the film company: “CHIRLA has teamed up with CHIRLA Liberty Films LLC to bring to life a dramatized film series about undocumented immigrants called Know Your Rights.” It’s a strange statement, given that the “Know Your Rights” video was produced in 2007. The 2020 audit lists $124,483 as an additional investment in the production of the unnamed film, and the Form 990 for that year lists a cumulative investment in film production of $366,896. Its financials for 2021 are essentially consistent, showing an additional $419,052 spent on the film, totaling $785,948. CHIRLA’s 2022 audit adds $151,658 in production costs, and the 2023 audit adds another $109,437, for a grand total of $1,047,043. Both audits state that the film still had not been completed as of June 30 of their respective years. But contradictorily, CHIRLA’s feature-length film—titled “America’s Family”—is listed on IMDb with a release date in 2022, and there are websites advertising showings in Los Angeles and Boston in June 2022—prior to June 30. Though CHIRLA’s Form 990s for 2020 and 2021 list a dollar value under “Investment in Liberty Film,” the Form 990s for 2022 and 2023 include no record of the investment in film production or acknowledgment of the wholly owned film company. After the initial showing of “America’s Family” in June 2022, the film had a number of additional showings in late 2023. In late 2024, CHIRLA presented the film for free or low cost at several local community centers in Mexico. It is now available for streaming on Amazon Prime. I know little about the film industry, but my suspicion is that the company may have spent more on these screenings than it earned in revenue. This brings me back to the auditor’s recurring statement: “Upon completion of the film, the Organization will review its total revenue estimates from the film, which may result in a change in the rate of amortization and/or a write-down of the film production costs to fair value.” Again, the audit does not include revenue estimates, so it is difficult to guess what this refers to. The $1 million spent on film production was considered an asset on financials. On what planet would this film break even? And what is the movie like? Judging from the trailer, it’s clichéd propaganda. It presents an idyllic life of a Spanish-speaking “American” family, suddenly torn apart by brutal ICE agents. You can judge its artistic merit for yourself. More important will be the judgment about the legality of CHIRLA’s financial filings.

* NEW FROM THE CHIRLA FILES * CHIRLA, the taxpayer-funded nonprofit that has been fomenting opposition to immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, owns a film production company that has produced a full-length feature. CHIRLA’s “beleaguered” Executive Director, Angelica Salas, is credited as the Executive Producer of the movie. Seems strange for a nonprofit, right? Pouring over its publicly available financial records, there appear to be a number of irregularities—though I do not have the expertise to form a definitive opinion about whether there was actual malfeasance. Here are the details. As background to CHIRLA’s film-making enterprise: In 2018, the organization produced a 20-minute short called “America, I Too,” which was shown at some film festivals. According to its website, this was “the second film in the series following the first short, ‘Know Your Rights’ created in 2007.” The video by that name that I found online is ten minutes long and has poor production values. CHIRLA incorporated its film company, called CHIRLA Liberty Film, LLC, in January 2019. It is entirely owned by the nonprofit, and its finances are consolidated in CHIRLA’s financial audits. The audit for the year ending June 30, 2019, lists film production costs in the amount of $242,413 and $28,764 from 2018, noting that they relate to the “various costs associated with the production of a film.” The audit, however, does not mention the existence of the film company. Strangely, CHIRLA’s Form 990 (the tax form filed by nonprofits with the IRS) for 2019 also does not reference either the company or the costs of film production. Every year beginning in 2019, CHIRLA’s audits state: “Upon completion of the film, the Organization will review its total revenue estimates from the film, which may result in a change in the rate of amortization and/or a write-down of the film production costs to fair value.” But confusingly, there are never any revenue estimates provided in any audit. The cost of the film production is simply listed as an asset each year. CHIRLA’s 2020 audit is the first to acknowledge the existence of the film company: “CHIRLA has teamed up with CHIRLA Liberty Films LLC to bring to life a dramatized film series about undocumented immigrants called Know Your Rights.” It’s a strange statement, given that the “Know Your Rights” video was produced in 2007. The 2020 audit lists $124,483 as an additional investment in the production of the unnamed film, and the Form 990 for that year lists a cumulative investment in film production of $366,896. Its financials for 2021 are essentially consistent, showing an additional $419,052 spent on the film, totaling $785,948. CHIRLA’s 2022 audit adds $151,658 in production costs, and the 2023 audit adds another $109,437, for a grand total of $1,047,043. Both audits state that the film still had not been completed as of June 30 of their respective years. But contradictorily, CHIRLA’s feature-length film—titled “America’s Family”—is listed on IMDb with a release date in 2022, and there are websites advertising showings in Los Angeles and Boston in June 2022—prior to June 30. Though CHIRLA’s Form 990s for 2020 and 2021 list a dollar value under “Investment in Liberty Film,” the Form 990s for 2022 and 2023 include no record of the investment in film production or acknowledgment of the wholly owned film company. After the initial showing of “America’s Family” in June 2022, the film had a number of additional showings in late 2023. In late 2024, CHIRLA presented the film for free or low cost at several local community centers in Mexico. It is now available for streaming on Amazon Prime. I know little about the film industry, but my suspicion is that the company may have spent more on these screenings than it earned in revenue. This brings me back to the auditor’s recurring statement: “Upon completion of the film, the Organization will review its total revenue estimates from the film, which may result in a change in the rate of amortization and/or a write-down of the film production costs to fair value.” Again, the audit does not include revenue estimates, so it is difficult to guess what this refers to. The $1 million spent on film production was considered an asset on financials. On what planet would this film break even? And what is the movie like? Judging from the trailer, it’s clichéd propaganda. It presents an idyllic life of a Spanish-speaking “American” family, suddenly torn apart by brutal ICE agents. You can judge its artistic merit for yourself. More important will be the judgment about the legality of CHIRLA’s financial filings.

Laura Powell

23,203 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Why The Kerala Story 2 Deserves Support The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond continues the conversation sparked by its predecessor, choosing to address sensitive and controversial themes rather than avoiding them. Supporters argue that this is precisely what makes the film important. In a democracy, cinema should not be limited to safe or comfortable subjects - it should also explore difficult realities and provoke thought. Despite legal challenges and public debate before its release, the film ultimately made it to theatres, reinforcing the idea that creative expression must be protected when it has received proper certification. Many viewers see this as a win not just for the filmmakers, but for artistic freedom in India. Beyond the controversy, the movie has generated strong audience interest and discussion. Whether one agrees with its perspective or not, The Kerala Story 2 has succeeded in sparking dialogue about social issues that some believe deserve attention. At its core, the film stands as an example of how cinema can move beyond entertainment and become a platform for awareness and debate - and for many supporters, that alone makes it worth backing. #ShowYourDaughters Here are the testimonies of real-life victims and their parents.

Why The Kerala Story 2 Deserves Support The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond continues the conversation sparked by its predecessor, choosing to address sensitive and controversial themes rather than avoiding them. Supporters argue that this is precisely what makes the film important. In a democracy, cinema should not be limited to safe or comfortable subjects - it should also explore difficult realities and provoke thought. Despite legal challenges and public debate before its release, the film ultimately made it to theatres, reinforcing the idea that creative expression must be protected when it has received proper certification. Many viewers see this as a win not just for the filmmakers, but for artistic freedom in India. Beyond the controversy, the movie has generated strong audience interest and discussion. Whether one agrees with its perspective or not, The Kerala Story 2 has succeeded in sparking dialogue about social issues that some believe deserve attention. At its core, the film stands as an example of how cinema can move beyond entertainment and become a platform for awareness and debate - and for many supporters, that alone makes it worth backing. #ShowYourDaughters Here are the testimonies of real-life victims and their parents.

Praveen Shetty🇮🇳

25,907 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Elizabeth Taylor’s 1963 portrayal of Cleopatra defined her as a global superstar and Hollywood royalty, setting a then-record million salary for the role. Taylor’s portrayal, marked by 65 costume changes and iconic eye makeup, solidified her image as a glamorous "screen goddess". ✨ The film, with a final cost around million, symbolized the decline of the traditional studio system and the rise of superstar power, partly due to Taylor's unprecedented contract. The film sparked a resurgence of interest in Egyptian-inspired fashion, including draped gowns and bold eye makeup. Despite its tumultuous production, the film was the highest-grossing film of 1963 and won four Academy Awards. 🎥© ai.daria.sarana (IG)

Elizabeth Taylor’s 1963 portrayal of Cleopatra defined her as a global superstar and Hollywood royalty, setting a then-record million salary for the role. Taylor’s portrayal, marked by 65 costume changes and iconic eye makeup, solidified her image as a glamorous "screen goddess". ✨ The film, with a final cost around million, symbolized the decline of the traditional studio system and the rise of superstar power, partly due to Taylor's unprecedented contract. The film sparked a resurgence of interest in Egyptian-inspired fashion, including draped gowns and bold eye makeup. Despite its tumultuous production, the film was the highest-grossing film of 1963 and won four Academy Awards. 🎥© ai.daria.sarana (IG)

Sarahh

57,055 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

‘STOLEN’ TO HAVE ITS ASIA PREMIERE AT JIO MAMI MUMBAI FILM FESTIVAL… In anticipation of the #AsiaPremiere of #Stolen at the #JIOMAMIMumbaiFilmFestival, producer #GauravDhingra and director #KaranTejpal have released a riveting clip of their highly-anticipated film #Stolen - featuring lead #AbhishekBanerjee - that promises an immersive cinematic experience. The film follows the aftermath of the abduction of an impoverished mother’s five-month-old child, as wealthy brothers Gautam and Raman become involved in a harrowing journey to help her. Scheduled for 29 and 31 October and 2 November 2023, this edge-of-the-seat thriller has had a successful international run with a premiere at the 80th Venice International Film Festival, a special mention in #Zurich and a packed house at the #BFI London Film Festival.

‘STOLEN’ TO HAVE ITS ASIA PREMIERE AT JIO MAMI MUMBAI FILM FESTIVAL… In anticipation of the #AsiaPremiere of #Stolen at the #JIOMAMIMumbaiFilmFestival, producer #GauravDhingra and director #KaranTejpal have released a riveting clip of their highly-anticipated film #Stolen - featuring lead #AbhishekBanerjee - that promises an immersive cinematic experience. The film follows the aftermath of the abduction of an impoverished mother’s five-month-old child, as wealthy brothers Gautam and Raman become involved in a harrowing journey to help her. Scheduled for 29 and 31 October and 2 November 2023, this edge-of-the-seat thriller has had a successful international run with a premiere at the 80th Venice International Film Festival, a special mention in #Zurich and a packed house at the #BFI London Film Festival.

taran adarsh

132,596 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

On this day, 39 years ago, Richard Donner's "Lethal Weapon" (1987) was released in the USA & Canada. Roger Ebert played a huge role in the film's success. When he and Gene Siskel reviewed it on their TV show, Ebert raved about it, said the film "thrilled me from beginning to end" and said it was both a great action film and a well-written drama. He later gave it 4 stars in a written review as well. Fans who had not been that aware of the film (which was released to limited fanfare and ad space in the doldrums of the Spring 1987 release period) went to see it after Ebert's rave and soon widely agreed with him on its quality. (Source: IMDb)

On this day, 39 years ago, Richard Donner's "Lethal Weapon" (1987) was released in the USA & Canada. Roger Ebert played a huge role in the film's success. When he and Gene Siskel reviewed it on their TV show, Ebert raved about it, said the film "thrilled me from beginning to end" and said it was both a great action film and a well-written drama. He later gave it 4 stars in a written review as well. Fans who had not been that aware of the film (which was released to limited fanfare and ad space in the doldrums of the Spring 1987 release period) went to see it after Ebert's rave and soon widely agreed with him on its quality. (Source: IMDb)

DepressedBergman

81,980 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

“Just Like Honey” is a song by The Jesus and Mary Chain, released on September 30, 1985, as part of their debut album Psychocandy. It became well-known for its blend of noise pop and shoegaze and gained popularity after being featured in the 2003 film Lost in Translation. Over the years, it has been included in numerous compilations and live albums. In 2024, they released a new album called Glasgow Eyes, which was well-received and marked a strong return to their classic sound.

“Just Like Honey” is a song by The Jesus and Mary Chain, released on September 30, 1985, as part of their debut album Psychocandy. It became well-known for its blend of noise pop and shoegaze and gained popularity after being featured in the 2003 film Lost in Translation. Over the years, it has been included in numerous compilations and live albums. In 2024, they released a new album called Glasgow Eyes, which was well-received and marked a strong return to their classic sound.

Ministry of Cults

19,852 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

In the 1970s, Tippi Hedren and Noel Marshall, moved by the beauty of big cats during a trip to Africa, set out to raise awareness through a film called *Roar*. They chose to use real, untrained lions, tigers, leopards, and cheetahs instead of special effects, believing it would give a genuine view of these animals. Their home in California became a makeshift sanctuary where over 70 big cats lived, creating a chaotic and unpredictable environment. This led to numerous incidents, like a tiger leaping through a window, frequent injuries, and destruction of property. Despite these dangers, Tippi and Noel saw it as a way to show the public the majesty and the need for conservation of these animals. Unfortunately, the film's production was fraught with problems. Many cast and crew members, including the family, were injured by the animals. The movie *Roar* was eventually completed and released in 1981, but it became a financial failure. It is remembered more for the chaotic and hazardous conditions during its making rather than for its intended message about wildlife conservation.

In the 1970s, Tippi Hedren and Noel Marshall, moved by the beauty of big cats during a trip to Africa, set out to raise awareness through a film called Roar. They chose to use real, untrained lions, tigers, leopards, and cheetahs instead of special effects, believing it would give a genuine view of these animals. Their home in California became a makeshift sanctuary where over 70 big cats lived, creating a chaotic and unpredictable environment. This led to numerous incidents, like a tiger leaping through a window, frequent injuries, and destruction of property. Despite these dangers, Tippi and Noel saw it as a way to show the public the majesty and the need for conservation of these animals. Unfortunately, the film's production was fraught with problems. Many cast and crew members, including the family, were injured by the animals. The movie Roar was eventually completed and released in 1981, but it became a financial failure. It is remembered more for the chaotic and hazardous conditions during its making rather than for its intended message about wildlife conservation.

Historic Vids

695,493 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🎬 Turtles Can Fly (2004) is a deeply moving Kurdish film directed by Bahman Ghobadi, set on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It tells the story of children in a refugee camp who are trying to survive in a war-torn land, showing their strength, innocence, and heartbreaking reality with quiet power. This film is raw and authentic, using non-professional child actors, many of whom were real refugees. It was the first film shot in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's fall, and it doesn't rely on violence or special effects to make an impact it touches you with its honesty and emotional depth. Critics and filmmakers around the world praised its poetic realism. Directors like Werner Herzog and Akira Kurosawa's admirers called it unforgettable. One striking fact is that the lead actor had never even seen a camera before filming, yet gave a powerful, unforgettable performance. Turtles Can Fly isn't just a film about war it's about what war does to the ones who understand it the least and suffer from it the most.

🎬 Turtles Can Fly (2004) is a deeply moving Kurdish film directed by Bahman Ghobadi, set on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It tells the story of children in a refugee camp who are trying to survive in a war-torn land, showing their strength, innocence, and heartbreaking reality with quiet power. This film is raw and authentic, using non-professional child actors, many of whom were real refugees. It was the first film shot in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's fall, and it doesn't rely on violence or special effects to make an impact it touches you with its honesty and emotional depth. Critics and filmmakers around the world praised its poetic realism. Directors like Werner Herzog and Akira Kurosawa's admirers called it unforgettable. One striking fact is that the lead actor had never even seen a camera before filming, yet gave a powerful, unforgettable performance. Turtles Can Fly isn't just a film about war it's about what war does to the ones who understand it the least and suffer from it the most.

WANA Visuals

61,113 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Mario Monicelli on why "The Organizer" (1963) was a commercial failure: "The film did very badly. It had all the ingredients to be a success, and even a great success. I'm convinced that five years later it would have been very well received. It was a film before its time, that came when people didn't feel like hearing about these problems; it seemed like a Communist propaganda movie about the working class. And yet the film had comical parts, it had been made in the usual way with that mixture of funny and tragic elements; it was therefore a particularly difficult film, it was in the same vein as 'The Great War' (1959). Perhaps the word "comrades" frightened people; those were the days of the center-left in Italy. Whatever the case may be, the public didn't go to see the film." ("Italian Filmmakers Self Portraits: A Selection of Interviews", Jean A. Gili, 1998)

Mario Monicelli on why "The Organizer" (1963) was a commercial failure: "The film did very badly. It had all the ingredients to be a success, and even a great success. I'm convinced that five years later it would have been very well received. It was a film before its time, that came when people didn't feel like hearing about these problems; it seemed like a Communist propaganda movie about the working class. And yet the film had comical parts, it had been made in the usual way with that mixture of funny and tragic elements; it was therefore a particularly difficult film, it was in the same vein as 'The Great War' (1959). Perhaps the word "comrades" frightened people; those were the days of the center-left in Italy. Whatever the case may be, the public didn't go to see the film." ("Italian Filmmakers Self Portraits: A Selection of Interviews", Jean A. Gili, 1998)

DepressedBergman

11,552 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Despite the film's reputation as one of the biggest box-office failures of all time, it was number one at the box office in its first week of release. The next week, with the release of Beverly Hills Cop II (1987), the film quickly dropped to fourth place. The general public considered this movie as a flop, but Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, and Edgar Wright are fans of the film. Scorsese called it one of his favourite movies. Can you guess the movie name?

Despite the film's reputation as one of the biggest box-office failures of all time, it was number one at the box office in its first week of release. The next week, with the release of Beverly Hills Cop II (1987), the film quickly dropped to fourth place. The general public considered this movie as a flop, but Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, and Edgar Wright are fans of the film. Scorsese called it one of his favourite movies. Can you guess the movie name?

Love Classical Music and Movies 🎺🎻💖🎥🎬

101,381 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce