A Bucket of Blood and State of play

Before this movie all i know about Rodger Corman was that well he sucked. I had only seen his stuff through mystery science theater. and needless to say they don't pick good Rodger Corman movies for that. Ok i know he helped Scorsese and used Nicholson early but he never really made anything i had seen that i liked. This movie changed my mind.
This movie is a great little weird horror movie. all though i can't really figure out why it's called bucket of blood. there is only maybe one seen with a bucket of blood and it's not really important. so either it's a metaphor (doubtful) or they just named it that to get people to come.
This movie has a coo beatnick vibe that i really like. I haven't seen too many beatnick horror movies. this one does a good job of it cause it's both fun and a little stupid. but you follow it. it's a low budget movie and you can tell so you kinda let it do what it's gonna do.
The plot is also pretty coo. it's about this lonely waiter at this beatnick coffee house. he accidentally kills a cat. then covers it up with clay and says it's a sculpture. then he becomes a success and has to kill more to more more art. and he has to keep killing to be more successful. awesome.
I really liked this film and i guess yeah it's a cult film but it's really good at being a cult film and it's defently worth checking out. it has just the right amount of satire and horror. i really liked this movie and Rodger Corman you have my respect after this one. but you have still made some stinkers.

i put this movie below on hulu it's only a little over an hours so if you can check it out do it. it's well worth it.







This movie is almost a standard conspiracy movie. it never really takes off. i feel like it could. it really could have been something special. like all the presidents men or something. i mean having a film take place in a newspaper now. man that sounds like a really intresting idea. it does and i suggest you watch the 5th season of the wire over this.
Honestly i think this was kind of sub par. I have seen the original bbc mini series and one thing i still remember about it is how well shot it was. now maybe it's unfair to do that. but hold on this has a bigger budget then that and more stars. so why did i get standard 09 cinematography. in fact i think they could have really uped there game with shooting this movie. it didn't seem like they were thinking about how things would look it was more. can i make this camera look handheld. well guess what i don't care. you obviously had money for a tripod. so that's just stupid. you can get handheld to work for you. here it just said to me. hey everyone look i was made in 2009 see look at me it's shakey cam. anyone see those bourne movies.
The acting was ok. Ben Affleck did ok. personally it reminded me of changing lanes. which i really liked. jus the way it was made. maybe not the subject matter.
Russel Crowe seemed to be the same guy he was in american gangster without an accent. wow great. a pudgy russel crowe coo. i guess.
the rest i don't know this really was ok. It doesn't get good really it kinda almost does but it just took it self too seriously. and didn't really seem to be having fun. i also wish there was more about the current state of newspapers in it also. if they really did a good job i think this would have been good but instead i got this movie. it was ok you get what you get and that isn't that great. oh well