Entertainment desk
< January 28	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 29

Music video to id

It's a few years old - we'll say from at least ten years ago, maybe as much as fifteen. For some reason, my mind hears Tomorrow Never Knows as the music, but it could just have been similar or had a similar drum line (I've checked several of the iterations of that song on YouTube - and no, it's definitely not the OLP version). The video is filled with video effects and trickery - kaleidoscope effects, mirror images, seemingly impossible spatial moves - and (I think) mostly features a woman moving between these various effects. There wasn't a storyline per se; it was mostly an excuse to do some trippy effects (musically and visually). Sorry, I know it's vague, but that's all I've got. Matt Deres (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt Deres: Chemical Brothers - Let Forever Be? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah! Yes, that's it! Thank you! Not quite the drumline from TNK, but quite similar in style. Matt Deres (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wide-release films that were not pre-screened for critics that received positive reception

From what I have read on Rotten Tomatoes and other websites, a film not being pre-screened for film critics is usually an indication that the film may turn out to not be a good one. In fact, looking at some films at List of films considered the worst, quite a few of them indeed were not pre-screened for critics. I remember reading a movie review (I can't remember about what or where, but it may have had to do with the negative reception for the film Norm of the North) which mentioned that, of the films that premiered around the time the review came out which weren't pre-screened for critics, the highest Tomatometer rating among them was 30%. Now my question is: what are examples of films that, for one reason or another, were not pre-screened for critics, but nevertheless received positive reception upon release, and if applicable, the reasons why they were not pre-screened? An indication of this would be if the film receives a "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes (60% rating or higher). As I presume that this occurs rather often among limited-release/independent films (given that they generally receive less promotion in the first place), my question is limited to wide-release films. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes's Not Screened for Critics lists a bunch of movies, unfortunately not sorted by Tomatometer rating. Snakes on a Plane has 68% at Rotten Tomatoes, and there are probably some other fresh movies on there. Most horror movies are not pre-screened for critics, according to the article. -- BenRG (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 version of Hercules was not screened for critics and received a score of 60% on Rotten Tomatoes. The linked article guesses that it was hidden because the film was different than how it was marketed. I haven't seen the movie or its trailer, so I can't opine. Quarantine, a horror movie, got 58%, which although not fresh is decent for a film from that genre. From a historical standpoint, Psycho did not get screened before its release; our article says that was because Alfred Hitchcock didn't want plot details to come out. Usually, though, when movies are hidden from critics, the studios are trying to hide them for a reason. That sends a signal that they won't be good, to audiences and critics alike. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killer film

What is the first film about a serial killer?--95.247.176.128 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Category:Serial killer films, which is unfortunately not listed chronologically, but it seems like The Terror from 1928 is the earliest one I can find. uhhlive (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's relevant, per StuRat below, but your link is redirecting to the Article Reign of Terror referring to the French Revolution. The link you meant is The Terror (1928 film). The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

whoops uhhlive (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can beat that, with 1927: The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, an early silent Hitchcock film. StuRat (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While London Sleeps is listed as a film from 1926 and a film about a serial killer but according to the article, there are no surviving prints of the film, so you probably won't be able to watch it. uhhlive (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do vampires count? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Did Sherlock ever face what you would consider to be a serial killer? If so, one of these adaptations from 1921-1923 might fit the bill. Matt Deres (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) is about a serial killer, sort of. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An IMDB search for the keyword serial-killer on a feature film released in 1927 or earlier finds 5 hits. Caligari and The Lodger have already been mentioned here; the others are While London Sleeps (1926), Souls for Sale (1923), and the earliest, Don Juan Manuel (1919), which does not have a Wikipedia article. However, I don't think the IMDB's plot keywords can be considered a reliable source. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]