Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies?

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? Page: <<   < prev  508 509 [510] 511 512   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 25/11/2013 10:07:58 PM   
UTB


Posts: 9928
Joined: 30/9/2005
Stoker was brilliant

And Pacific Rim was sheeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttteeeeee!


(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15271
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 26/11/2013 9:17:18 AM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3998
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platter

Valhalla Rising (2009)

An unusual movie that is clearly aiming for the oddball, midnight cult movie genre as exemplified by El Topo, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Eraserhead and more recently A Field In England. The problem is that it has the weird atmosphere but not enough strange stuff going on in it.

It's a curiously empty movie with a lot of Scottish highlands landscape shots instead of actual content. There are only so many images of people wandering around these landscapes you can watch before it becomes boring and trite. A lot of musical noise accumulates on the soundtrack to signify something momentous is going to take place. Then nothing happens and the soundtrack quietens down again. They used this technique many times. Very little happens in the film. The hollow script is more suited to a short movie as it feels more than a little stretched at feature length.

The reputation it had seemed to suggest that it was a relentlessly tense movie full of sickening violence, and that half the running time would be fighting - of an artier variety rather than Hollywood action. The opening has a bit of violence, and then it drops off and the slack pacing means there is no tension. There are brief bits of sudden violence throughout the movie, but it doesn't last and is not that gory or bone crunching. I did not feel the movie was filled with tension that never lets up.

The boat section was boring but it wasn't until they reached land that I realised just how slow the movie was. It really started to plod as they walked around finding nothing. So it took me about fifty minutes to work out that it was a slow movie. Until then it didn't particularly strike me that it was limping along.

The director is the star. The actors aren't given enough to work with to give compelling performances (there is little dialogue, or personality to the characters) and the story is so indifferent and uneventful that by default you spend your time paying attention to what the director is doing. So the cinematography and editing and the weird atmosphere become more interesting than anything else. I find the director's style to be in your face but also strangely impersonal. He doesn't have a big enough personality to take over and really justify making himself the star of the film. He just isn't that interesting and out-there.

The ending is disappointing and rather arbitrary. Ultimately I'm not sure if there is much point or substance to the film. There was potential for something outrageous here. There is a definite sense of a wasted opportunity to make a Vikings on acid head-trip film - it's a long way from 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was obviously an inspiration on the film.

The film is slow, meandering and uneventful. There isn't enough content to fill the running time and the ideas and scenes aren't strange enough to make it into a satisfying midnight cult film. For all these complaints, it was watchable and it didn't stretch my patience. I feel ultimately it was an alright film that just needed a better script (weirder and more eventful).

5 out of 10





Warm Bodies (2013)


Below average. I struggled with some of the odd logic (eating brains gives zombies the memories of the victim?!) and the depiction of the main zombie is just bizarre (he's made a home for himself in an airplane and he collects vinyl?!). The tone was a little strange. The thing felt very mild with a young adult novel feel to it. It didn't work very well and was just very, very average. It was watchable and it passed the time, but beyond that I can't say anything for it.

4 out of 10




The Collection (2012)


It's a very silly movie that has decided to go over the top and bigger. It's too contrived and fake to be offensive or scary. There are a few mild jumps but there is nothing in it that disturbs. No matter how many severed body parts or sick images they throw at us it's just too ridiculous to be unnerving. It's all a bit camp in a funhouse hall of mirrors sort of way. The plot just about holds together and it is entertaining enough. The editing is a bit choppy at times with whole actions being cut out and around (a person is hiding under a medical cabinet on the floor, next shot they are already on their feet; they call for an ambulance, two shots later it turns up as though its only one minute later). The pace might be a bit too fast, which kills any tension, but at least reaction shots have been kept so the actors have a chance to at least act to some extent (when reactions shots are cut out the acting looks incompetent as they all shrug with total indifference over the death of their friends). It's not a clever, well written movie, and it's way too silly for its own good to work as a horror, but it was an okay film. An unremarkable movie but by the low straight to rental horror sequel standards it's a masterpiece. Also there is a lot less prolonged torturing in this one, so it's not as sick as the first one. The movie it reminds me of the most is Hellraiser II, in that it goes for a grander scale over the small, contained mostly to one house, first movie.

5 out of 10





The Fourth Man (1983)


It has a very inconsequential, slight little story full of over the top, unsubtle symbolism. It's decent for what it is, it's just it isn't about much. It's not really a film with much ambition. It's entertaining I suppose. It was okay.

6 out of 10




The Elephant Man (1980)


Possibly about fifteen years ago I tried to watch this film. I gave up at about the hour point when the caretaker took a woman up to Merrick's room. I thought the subject matter was icky, and the many scenes of public embarrassment made the film very uncomfortable to watch. I thought the movie wasn't too bad, but I was not enjoying it at all so I gave up on it. So now I've tried to watch it a second time. I got to the end. The first hour is very powerful and atmospheric with great black and white cinematography. The subject matter, and the scenes of public humiliation, mean the movie is a hard watch. The pace was good and the work with the (very respectable) actors and the camerawork is strong - I think Lynch's work in these area became worse with later movies. There are only three indulgent Lynchian moments of arty abstractly shot, edited and soundtracked parts in the film - the birth, a nightmare towards the end and the final moments. It's not a very Lynchian movie. His personality doesn't dominate. I guess he was more of a director for hire than he was on his other movies (with the exception of Dune). The second half, once Merrick has begun to be accepted into high society, starts to meander a bit and it loses its dramatic thrust and narrative momentum. It becomes a bit plodding. The (I assume historically inaccurate) kidnapping to France serves a point to give the film some drama at the end, but it feels like a contrived, lumpy speed bump on the way to the ending. I suppose without this sequence it would be a very mundane and bland ending. I liked the film, but I admire it more than love it.

7 out of 10



Housekeeping (1987)


Strange, oddball little movie about unconventional subject matter. Visually pretty and quite substantial within the slender story. The ending was unexpectedly abrupt as the credits suddenly started scrolling up the screen. I liked it. It deserves to be more well known than it is.

7 out of 10





Point Blank (1967)


There are a few iconic images (mostly in the first fifteen minutes) but overall the plot is rather prosaic and the direction not as startlingly out-there as it once was. The editing could be pretentious and abstract for no good reason, and those moments tended to slow the film down. The set piece action scenes were mostly drab. It was alright, but it's nothing to get excited about. The Mel Gibson remake Payback (1999) is the better version.

5 out of 10




The Limits of Control (2009)


I expected a slow pace, a meandering story and a non-committal climax that doesn't explain or justifies any of it. I got that, but even with those expectations I'm still slightly surprised at how blank and empty it all was. The first half hour was a bit of a struggle as it was very unengaging. Then for about an hour I got into its weird rhythm and enjoyed it. I was lulled into its way of working - I particularly noticed this when he is on the train with the Japanese/Chinese woman. The last twenty or so minutes, from when he goes to the closed-up house in the desert and then travels to the white walled compound, started to stretch my patience. By that point it really needed to go somewhere or do something. The climax was unsatisfying. I knew that would be the case, but still they could at least have had the guy say a monologue or something before he is killed for unexplained reasons. It was a very insubstantial film. It only came alive during the amusingly (in a good way) pretentious dialogue scenes (in a sea of silent sequences) when people would actually talk. There is a lot of repetition built into the story (every conversation starts with, 'You don't speak Spanish, right?'), but it was done in an amusing way. It was okay, I enjoyed a large chunk of it, but overall it was too pointless. It is very nearly 6 out of 10, but the ending left me with enough dissatisfaction for me to be slightly annoyed at how pointless the journey was.

5 out of 10





Stoker (2012)


This film has perhaps the worst screenplay ever written. The script was an awkward, incompetent mess of old clichés. There isn't a single semi-original idea in the film. It's just stunningly bad. The story is very basic but it hides information from the viewer (not that there is much that you can't guess straightaway) and uses lots of unnecessary obscure scenes and dialogue to confuse the watcher. The film is wilfully cryptic for absolutely no reason. Instead of being intriguing or mysterious it just comes across as half written. Scene after scene sort of half plays out without going anywhere or doing anything. I suspect each scene was written in isolation (perhaps not even in order) from each other and was then copy and pasted into sequence at a later point. Then no unifying rewrite took place to get the scenes to flow together. This would account for the sheer lumpiness and structural messiness of it. The story doesn't build and work. The script is an atrocious, inconsistent disaster. You can see what the writer was conceptually trying to get at, but he missed the mark by a vast distance.

The direction was over stylised to a silly degree. It was okay as the over the top images at least breathed some life into it. It's not like they could get in the way of the great script. Also the gothic ambience was appealing.

The film was watchable I think mainly because the pace was quick. Good pacing can hide a multitude of deficiencies and stave off boredom. With a slower pace I would have been unable to watch it.

The script is an epic stinker. How it got made I can't imagine. The film is an insubstantial turd. I hope the scriptwriter never finishes another script ever again.

2 out of 10





Separation (1967)


Watchable enough avant garde English movie from the 60s. The first half hour reminded me of late period Terrence Malick with the pretentious voice overs and the random improvised scenes randomly cut together. There was some sort of a story and a bit of forward momentum so it was easy enough to watch. The long Italian restaurant scene with improvised dialogue went on a bit but it was still okay. After that it became rather fragmented and abstract with the swimming pool fantasy scenes. The story petered out and it became a rather shapeless load of nothing. Without a narrative thread to hold onto there wasn't anything to pay attention to. It became a bit boring and the last (very silly and pointless) minutes started to try my patience. Overall it was an interesting experimental film that almost works. There is a strong echo of the French New Wave movies by Godard, and it holds up very well in comparison to those. The framing of the camera work was often impressively unusual and the black and white photography looked very, very good on the Blu-Ray disc (there are a few bits in colour). Not a great film, but of some minor merit and it wasn't hard going until the final stretch.

5 out of 10




Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (1992)


The first half hour with the FBI agents is surprisingly strong. There are clever moments and lots of humour. There is a story and forward momentum. 8 out of 10 material. Abruptly that section ends. The first hour of the Laura Palmer story is fairly good. A lot of interesting scenes. 7 out of 10 materiel. After about the rock club with barely audible dialogue it loses its way. I haven't seen the first season of Twin Peaks in a long time so maybe all the random odd stuff cluttering up the story needs to be there to set up the TV show. As it is, the plot judders to a halt and there's a lot of pointless scenes. It becomes all rather abstract and overlong. Frankly it was both boring and annoying. The ending goes on way too long, the pace slows to a crawl and the content is silly and baffling - and I'm not sure it's meant to be this confusing. A horrible ending. Overall it starts strong but becomes weaker as it goes on until it's from 8 to 6 out of 10 stuff. The script is full of dead ends, but maybe the show picks up on them.

6 out of 10




World War Z (2012)


Very average, verging on bad. It has almost zero connection to the source novel which was full of potential for action sequences. It's almost perverse for them to ignore such strong material in favour of this bland and unimaginative script. The direction is weak with fast editing that makes it hard to really get a good sense of what you are seeing. The film makes little to no impact beyond a few well executed shock moments that made me jump. There is little tension and the story is unengaging. The first quarter in Philadelphia is weak but watchable while the second quarter, on the Korean base, was alright. The strongest section was the third quarter in Israel. The scale is big and the action almost exciting. The last quarter in Wales is slow and boring. They spend the first hour looking for patient zero and then by the end completely forget that storyline as they just accept that there is no way to trace the origins. The film doesn't really work and is poorly directed and written. It was watchable in a low wattage sort of way (and it doesn't look like two hundred millions dollars was spent on it). As an adaption of the book it's a joke (a little speech about Israeli military paranoia is about the only thing they kept from the book).

5 out of 10





Dune (1984)


The film doesn't really work. None of it came off very well. Visually it looks ugly (sets, camera work, lighting), the special effects are terrible and the acting often wooden. The script is not good. It's clearly too big a book to squeeze down into a conventional length movie. There's too much random world building and mystical stuff coming at you all the time. In the novel (which I read a long, long time ago) I assume there is context and in-depth explanations for all this stuff so it doesn't come across as random, nonsensical, silly stuff like it does in the film. It just kept throwing more made up stuff with weird names at you right up to the very end. The Fremen scenes are particularly abrupt. It feels like a hundred pages of prose has been condensed into four scenes and five lines of dialogue. It is portentous and silly with Paul being appointed the messiah in about five seconds, and then his sister is born a minute after that etc. Also the endless voice overs come across as desperate and silly as they are clearly only there as a last resort to try and explain everything. The script is a weak mess. Paul, the hero, is never the underdog in the story. He is born into royalty, accepted as exceptionally gifted, anointed as a possible messiah, joins the great warriors of the Fremen and is then found to be the actual messiah. His chances of complete and total victory are assured without any doubt. It is not the greatest of drama when the hero is invincible. The movie fails on almost every level and is a stodgy, slightly boring viewing experience. It has a strange atmosphere of dour depression mixed in with incredible cheesiness. For all of its many faults it is interesting source material and it does hold the attention. It's bad, but it's of some substance and it's not a hard watch. I like it more than I should.

5 out of 10



The Straight Story (1999)


It was alright. There are strong stretches in it, particularly in the middle, but there are also boring stretches. I expected nothing much from the climax, but even so it was a little weak and indifferent at the end. Bits of it were quietly affecting, such as the World War 2 sniper story. The direction was very restrained and controlled with minimal editing so the shots (often on cranes) were held for longer than average lengths of time. There wasn't much of a story - I knew that going in so I didn't expect anything resembling thrills or dramatic content. The one joke idea is a little overstretched towards the end. The film works well enough. I first tried to watch this over a decade ago and gave up at the 25 minute point when he buys the grabber in the shop as I hated it.

6 out of 10



Pacific Rim (2013)

As good a movie as it could have been. It's certainly better than any of the Transformer movies. The story was interesting and set in a well realised future world. The action was very well filmed with restrained camera work and editing - you can mostly see what is happening without any problem. A lot of time is spent on the characters. They might be paper thin and clichéd but somehow they are worth spending the time with and their issues are well presented to the point they are actually interesting. The director has a good BS detector and sense of what will work and what is worth spending time on. It shows what a quality, artistically minded director can bring to a film as a hack would have made something much more average from this pulp material. Some of the acting was so-so (the scientist characters are way too broad) and some of the logic is shaky. I really enjoyed it.

9 out of 10



Agree with you about World War Z [though I rated it even lower] and Pacific Rim [which I loved like you did], but totally disagree on everything else to be honest! Always enjoy reading your thoughts though.

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Platter)
Post #: 15272
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 26/11/2013 12:32:26 PM   
Platter

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 14/8/2010
Birth (2004)

Strange subject matter with icky implications dealt with in a frosty style
You can’t help but wonder why anyone wanted to make this? How did it attract financing, a director and a famous cast? Of all the scripts floating around why did this one beat the odds and get made and released into cinemas? It’s un-commercial, unpromising material that holds little appeal. It certainly held no appeal to me. What finally made me watch it was that the first credited writer was the co-writer of some of Luis Buñuel surrealist movies. Also the direction was compared, in at least one review anyway, to Stanley Kubrick with the chilly atmosphere and the pretty, brittle visual style. The director’s career is now looking quite Kubrick like as he has only three movies to his name with big gaps between them (2000, 2004 and 2013). I assume Birth killed his career and he hadn’t been able to get a film made in that gap, and that it’s not a chosen sabbatical for high-minded artistic reasons.

Anyway, the odd story is competently told but it isn’t very interesting. It never sparks into life and gets out of first gear. The chilly, detached style means it remains a cold film that seems more interested in creating nice images instead of getting into the drama of it. Everything stays on the same sedate note – there is only one exception with a moment of amusing violence. It’s really not a film you can get into. It keeps the viewer at a distance without showing or telling us anything entertaining or profound. There is no dramatic weight to any of it. Kidman’s face for example should be telling us of her unspoken turmoil. I didn’t personally feel it. The long close up on her face at the symphony and the ending on the beach didn’t work for me as I felt nothing.

It’s a slight, uneventful story with a weak twist. The story is better suited to a short thirty-minute movie or a novella. Curiously for this type of movie there are three credited writers. The director is the last name. My understanding is that the director needs to have re-written something like 50% of the final screenplay to earn an on-screen credit. If this is accurate, then I guess the original script was very different to what ended up being made.

There are a few scenes of a sexual nature that are very uncomfortable, and you wonder why anyone thought it was worth doing due to how misunderstood their intentions could be. There isn’t even much for the actors to get their teeth into, so it doesn’t even justify its existence by being an actors’ film were they get to stretch-out and perform.

Kidman’s short haircut and the building the film is set in reminded me of Rosemary’s Baby (1968). I assume this was a deliberate echo.

The orchestral soundtrack was very good. It was quite an in your face, look at me, intrusive score. It worked and earns your attention.

The Kubrick connection seems valid in my opinion. The ponderous, clinical approach to the storytelling; the slowly edited, good looking stately camerawork and the tepid, deliberate pacing make it similar in style to his work. Also the use of slow zooms is very reminiscent of his films from A Clockwork Orange onwards. The film owes more to Kubrick than it does to Buñuel. Buñuel’s lightly tossed off style might have suited the material better than Kubrick’s heavy handedness. The film is missing a lightness of touch that might have made it seem less stiff and mannered. It’s a very formal movie.

In the end it was a weak film that wasn’t particularly interesting or intriguing. The content has no impact. Instead I spent most of my time pondering what they thought they were trying to do. It was watchable, and not without some minor pleasures, but it was not a good movie. It has a strange, and not in a good way, story and a ponderous filmmaking style.

4 out of 10

_____________________________

My novel:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Cuckoo-Island-ebook/dp/B00EIP4ZVS/ref=sr_1_4?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1377097535&sr=1-4

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15273
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 26/11/2013 6:11:45 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6730
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


Northern Italy, during the early 14th century. Franciscan monk William of Baskerville and his novice Adso of Melk arrive at a Benedictine abbey where a mysterious suicide has occurred ahead of an important theological Church conference. William, known for his deductive and analytic mind, confronts the worried Abbot and gains permission to investigate the death. Over the next few days, several other bizarre deaths occur, and the two gradually discover that everything is not what it seems in the abbey….

The Name Of The Rose is a dark, gloomy, medieval murder mystery that, as many of director Jean-Jacques Annaud’s [Quest For Fire, Enemy At The Gates] films do, takes the viewer into a world that seem strange and alien, and makes it feel totally and utterly authentic. A monastery and the doings of monks may not even seem very interesting to some, but the film’s unique setting actually helps make it so interesting. Though there is some blood and breasts, and certainly a giallo feel to certain sections of the film, it’s a very dour work that doesn’t really make many concessions to the viewer and requires him or her to be patient. I think it’s a very rewarding watch that has a decent story and also a strong, always relevant theme about the suppression of individuality and writing. It also has to my mind one of Sean Connery’s greatest performances. He plays a sort-of medieval monk Sherlock Holmes, brilliant at spotting things and working things out, and superbly conveys both the character’s intelligence and a certain world-weariness. Only as 007 has that twinkle in Connery’s eye seemed as appropriate.

The book was written by Umberto Eco, and an extremely heavy-going tome it is, though definitely rewarding if you have the patience for it. Annaud, who has a lifelong fascination with medieval churches, told Eco that he was convinced the book was written for only one person to direct – that is to say himself. He spent four years preparing the project. The script by Andrew Birkin, Gerard Brach, Howard Franklin and Alain Goddard simplified much of the book but retained its essence, though some were disappointed by the happier ending and more simplistic depictions of some of the characters. Michael Caine, Robert De Niro, Jack Nicholson, Ian McKellen, Roy Sheider, Marlon Brando, Max Von Sydow [now he would have been good] and Donald Sutherland were amongst those considered for the role of William of Baskerville until Connery got the part. Because Connery’s career was in a slump, Columbia pulled out and the film became a co-production between several European companies. It was partly shot at the Eberbach monastery in Germany, where a key page from one of the many religious books and manuscripts was stolen [it took them a year to make a new page], and partly on the largest exterior set since Cleopatra. Connery caught fire for real in one scene and was saved by Annaud, who jumped on top of him and rolled him to the ground. The Name Of The Rose flopped in the US, but was a big success in many European countries, though a sex scene had to be cut from some prints because Christian Slater, whose first film this was, was 15.

Straight away this is a visually strong picture, Tonino Delli Colli’s [Once Upon A Time In America] photography really bringing to life the bleak landscapes and every nook and cranny of the forbidding monastery in which most of the film will take place. I guess these days most people think of monks as content, peaceful folk, but straight away the monastery in this film comes across as being very sinister indeed. Annaud seemed to go out of his way to find the ugliest, or at least the most visually interesting, actors he could to be play many of the monks, the most memorable, unsurprisingly, being Ron Perlman as a truly mad brother who, as William puts it: “speaks all languages, and none of them well”. These human gargoyles scurry around like rats and scheme all sorts of things as the plot develops to take in murder, blackmail, homosexuality, and many other things besides. Though we certainly want to know who is committing the murders, it becomes more a case of ‘whydunit’ rather than whodunit. The search for a forbidden book ends up being very reminiscent of the later The Da Vinci Code, but whereas Dan Brown’s novel became utterly ludicrous and the film got lost in tedious exposition, this story remains believable and keeps the dialogue precise and to the point.

The tale widens to take in the wider religious conflict that was occurring in Italy at the time, where the Franciscans, the Benedictines and several smaller Christians sects were virtually at war with each other over their approach. It really rams home what a terrible period it was all over Europe, where the Church, sometimes even more than the aristocracy, ruled with an iron hand, keeping the starving poor totally downtrodden. One striking moment shows a Church judge’s carriage being pushed through mud by peasants, forced to do this by the accompanying soldiers while the judge remains nice and clean. Now all this makes this film to sound unrelentingly grim, but there are moments of wonder, and even joy, like when they discover a secret library and William is ecstatic. There is also a certain amount of humour, much of it arising from the conversations of William and Adso, his novice who is on the brink of manhood. Adso asks him about women, and William gives him the priceless answer of: “Well, of course I don’t have the benefit of your experience, but I find it difficult to convince myself that God would have introduced such a foul being into creation without endowing her with ‘some’ virtues. Hmm? How peaceful life would be without love, Adso, how safe, how tranquil, and how dull”.

The film doesn’t dwell on its brutality and actually holds back on showing some torture, but remains an ‘18’ certificate due to the extremely erotic scene where William’s novice Adso is borderline sexually assaulted by the nameless Girl, a beautiful [she should probably have been a snuggle-toothed, greasy-haired, filthy, lice-ridden horror, but never mind] peasant girl in the habit of sneaking in to the monastery and exchanging sexual favours for food. Slater was actually asked to pick the actress he liked best out of several choices, yet wasn’t actually told what she was going to do to make his response more realistic. The lucky 15-year old wenton to have a relationship with the lovely 23-year old Valentina Vargas. Slater wasn’t really good enough of an actor back then to convey his character’s falling in love and inner turmoil, and the Girl’s subplot feels undeveloped. Her role is slightly larger in the film than the book, and her story altered towards the end, but the film’s invented final scene, where Adso has to make a choice which will set in pattern the rest of his life, is not as moving as it should be because it feels that not enough of the rest of the narrative has been leading up to it. You may think for ages afterwards whether he made the right choice though. When I was younger, I thought he didn’t and found his decision baffling. Now, with the benefit of a greater understanding of life during those times, I understand it.

Annaud just about keeps control of what is a somewhat oddly-shaped story, a story which sometimes feels as if it doesn’t know where it’s going. Other members of the cast so-far unmentioned who stand out include former Bond-villain [though he faced Roger Moore, not Connery] Michael Lonsdale, and F. Murray Abraham in fine nasty form as an Inquisitor and enemy of William. James Horner contributes a strange, mostly synthesised, score that doesn’t sound much else he has written and adds another, rather odd, aspect to the film. Less a thriller than a thoroughly convincing immersion into a world where things we take for granted like compassion and laughter were considered alien to many, The Name Of The Rose is one of those films that may seen unsatisfying the first time round, but its incredible atmosphere [you can almost feel the cold] will stay with you, while the film itself seems to get better and better each time you see it. Can you imagine it being made, at least on such a large scale, today? I would also have liked to have seen William of Baskerville on our screens again.

Rating: 8/10

Love this film and what a great review mate, love to post mine but I can't post any pictures for some reason, and i'm having problems with even posting reviews, cause I can't edit them for some reason.


_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15274
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 27/11/2013 12:53:35 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3248
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
With the season finale next Monday, I have to say this season of True Blood has been one of my favourites - probably up there with S3 for me, I know a lot of fans have slagged it off but I don't care!

Also, folks MUST buy TCSM 2 (Ltd Ed) BR from Arrow. It's lush!!! As is their THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS BR.

Films I'll be seeing this weekend:

ROUGH CUT (International Premiere)
CARRIE (2013)
BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR

And on a sidenote: Has anyone purchased the BR of THE HEAT?? I love Sandra Bullock and was wondering what those 3 extra mins actually contain? I was disappointed to read, it's not said footage that raises it to an 18 cert but rather one of the extra features!!

_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15275
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 28/11/2013 4:21:23 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6730
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: losthighway

With the season finale next Monday, I have to say this season of True Blood has been one of my favourites - probably up there with S3 for me, I know a lot of fans have slagged it off but I don't care!

Also, folks MUST buy TCSM 2 (Ltd Ed) BR from Arrow. It's lush!!! As is their THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS BR.

Films I'll be seeing this weekend:

ROUGH CUT (International Premiere)
CARRIE (2013)
BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOUR

And on a sidenote: Has anyone purchased the BR of THE HEAT?? I love Sandra Bullock and was wondering what those 3 extra mins actually contain? I was disappointed to read, it's not said footage that raises it to an 18 cert but rather one of the extra features!!

I too am enjoying TRUE BLOOD season 4, it's better paced and it's got Ruger Huger, so it's now in my opion the best season yet, and so is the new season of The Walking Dead just awesome, and the Governor is back, can't wait till tomorrow.
Hoping to catch CARRIE 2013 at the cinema, the trailer looks great, so i'll give this remake ago after all, I did feel that the original could not be matched, but it's getting some great reviews, so lets see.

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 15276
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 29/11/2013 12:09:02 AM   
losthighway


Posts: 3248
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
True Blood Season SIX you mean! Lol. The seventh season is the final one.

And Carrie has got mediocre reviews across the board. I've yet to read a good one. Although, I still want to see it

And yeah, mid season finale of Walking Dead next week. Agreed its been excellent this season.

_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15277
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 29/11/2013 9:17:20 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012
OK, any of you weird / strange movie-lovers remember a 1985 Italian film that, in the UK, was called 'Nothing Underneath'?

The proper, original title was 'Sotto Il Vestino Niente', It was a thriller about models being murdered in Italy, with Donald Pleasence in a lead role and a brilliant soundtrack by Pino Donnaggio...

I seem to remember loving it back in the VHS days, but can't get hold of it anywhere... the only thing I can find is this clip of the VERY last scene, with Mr D's brilliant score, so, you know, spoilers...

I'd love it if any of you guys remember this flick...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcUiItmqc9w





_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 15278
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 30/11/2013 4:17:05 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3133
Joined: 22/11/2006
Haven't been very active on this thread for a little while, but I have a new review for you to tuck into. Please don't hate me for enjoying it!


Director: Kimberly Peirce
Writers: Lawrence D. Cohen, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (screenplay), Stephen King (novel)
Starring: Chloe Grace Moretz, Julianne Moore, Gabriella Wilde, Portia Doubleday, Judy Greer, Alex, Russell, Zoe Belkin
Running time: 100 minutes
Certification: 15

Carrie, shy and bullied at school and oppressed by her evangelical mother at home, begins discovering she can move objects with her mind. When she gets invited to prom by one of the most popular boys in school, she can’t help but feel it’s all big trick, but she also can’t help wasting the chance to have the night of her dreams…


Remakes, remakes, remakes. They’re everywhere these days, the young, hot escorts of Hollywood producers who are ditching old, worn-out classics and “rejuvenating” them for the smartphone generation. Here we are again with yet another fresh take on a classic horror flick; Brian De Palma’s Carrie from 1976. Back then it shocked and wowed audiences – and still does – with its brazen depiction of teen bullying offset by strong horror elements and religious themes. Sissy Spacek was frighteningly believable in the central role, and that climax is still one of the most shocking pieces of horror cinema to date. One could certainly argue that there’s nothing about the film that needs re-doing, and that Kimberly Perice’s attempt to do so fails to bring anything new to the table. That would, however, be looking at the film through a slightly cynical eye.

Not to deny that Peirce’s Carrie doesn’t do anything new or different or interesting with the original material (the film anyway - I haven’t read Stephen King’s novel). It frustratingly goes through all the same beats and emotional chords, never swaying from the template already set and tested and using many of the same tricks that made the original so distinguished (the slo-mo walk to the stage or Carrie silently searching for her mother in a darkened house), but it does stand alongside De Palma’s film every step of the way. Perhaps that sounds like damning praise, but really it’s an impressive achievement amidst the array of dull, soulless, lesser remakes of the last few years.

The only thing this remake really adds, or perhaps more accurately, changes, from the original is the technological advancements inherent with the story being set nearly forty years later. During the famous opening shower scene, Chris (the bitchiest of bitch antagonists) whips out her smartphone and records the whole thing, only to later post online and get in trouble for it. This opens a whole new door to her character, and ultimately the plot, which the original film just didn’t have. That, and the far more extravagant climax which goes bigger and lasts longer than De Palma’s film, but to generally good effect. There’s more blood (sadly not dyed corn syrup) and more carnage this time round, but that’s no bad thing.

Filling in Sissy Spacek’s shoes is another fine young actress who’s just going from strength to strength. Just like Jennifer Lawrence or Haley Steinfeld, Chloe Moretz is taking Hollywood by storm with her talent and confidence, and showing them that she wants to and can own films. They’re proving that there’s a new generation of brilliant actresses who need strong female lead roles, and this writer certainly hopes they get them.

As Carrie White, Moretz is good but awkward. Not awkward in the way that Carrie is, but awkward in that there’s a lot of head dipping and shoulder hunching action going on as she drifts through the hallways of her cruel high school under the torment of her peers; actions which look unnatural to her. With all due respect to Sissy Spacek, Moretz is just too “normal” looking to be entirely believable in the role. She doesn’t look strange or unusual enough, or an outcast, even with the help of fine make-up work, and while I must stress that she is very good and completely embodies the role, it’s just often hard to see her as the character and not Moretz acting really well. There was something to Spacek’s casting as Carrie White that just clicked, almost inexplicably, like Heath Ledger as The Joker or Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone. Every actor has a role they’re remembered for, and Spacek’s is definitely Carrie White. I, for one, can’t wait to see what Moretz’s turns out to be, but it certainly won't be this.

Oddly, Carrie and her relationship with her crazy, religious zealot mother (portrayed terrifyingly well by a straggly-haired Julianne Moore) is less interesting than the stuff going on at the high school. It should be the other way around; Moretz and Moore are two fantastic actresses and the dynamic of their relationship is compelling and frightening – at birth Margaret White contemplated killing her baby as she thought it was born out of sin, and as Carrie has grown up Margaret still feels she is of the Devil’s blood – but somehow it’s Carrie at school, her interactions with the hot couple Tommy and Sue who feel sympathy for her but who she doesn’t trust, and her surrenders to Chris’ unfathomable cruelty, that prove the most compelling.

Certainly no better than De Palma’s original film, Carrie is ultimately an unnecessary remake – but a good unnecessary remake. What it lacks in gritty rawness it makes us for in sleek visuals and fine acting talent, and while the finale may go on too long and end up relying just a bit too heavily on CGI, it still gives us that gut-curdling feeling of anger and fear that concludes to be Carrie’s last straw.

4/5

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 15279
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 30/11/2013 4:27:10 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3248
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
Whistler I won't lie to you... there's a very good chance I'll like CARRIE (2013) better than the original! I'm weird like that... Hoping to catch it tomorrow night/Tuesday night.

I went to see the International Premiere of ROUGH CUT last night. One of the worst mockumentary/film's I have EVER seen. It was appallingly bad! If you ever get wind of this film, trust me. Don't bother! 4 people (that I know of) walked out and at the end the majority of folks around me were commenting how shit it was. Overall: 0/5

I've bought THE HEAT BR so hoping to watch that this evening. Plus, I've got my hands on BOYS ON FILM X (a collection of gay shorts) which HR used to chastise me for mentioning on this thread but sod it, some of then might actually be half decent!

< Message edited by losthighway -- 30/11/2013 4:28:16 PM >


_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15280
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 30/11/2013 6:36:09 PM   
King of Kafiristan

 

Posts: 1004
Joined: 14/1/2012
From: The States
The American Astronaut.



I once went to go get a cigarette while watching this for the second time, and there was the director/writer/star, just chilling out in the lobby.

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 15281
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 1/12/2013 12:31:28 PM   
paul.mccluskey


Posts: 5165
Joined: 15/4/2007
From: Port Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Went to see Gravity last night. Visually breathtaking and so intense, the 3D was superb. It has definitely made my list of the best films of 2013. Sandra Bullock was excellent.

Surprised to see the remake of Carrie getting good reviews.

< Message edited by paul.mccluskey -- 1/12/2013 12:32:24 PM >

(in reply to King of Kafiristan)
Post #: 15282
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 1/12/2013 9:19:22 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3998
Joined: 19/10/2005
A bigger and, I hope, better review



One day at the gym during the showers, Carrie White experiences her first period. Having no prior knowledge of menstruation, Carrie believes she is bleeding to death. The other girls react by throwing tampons and sanitary pads at her. A frantic Carrie somehow bursts a light bulb with her mind, and later causes an ashtray to fall on the floor. At home, Carrie’s unstable, fanatically religious mother Margaret hears about the locker room incident and locks her into a closet to pray for forgiveness from the ‘’curse of blood”. The next day, Carrie’s teacher Miss Collins subjects Carrie’s tormenters to a week-long boot-camp-style detention, but the worst of the bullies Chris Hargensen storms off the field and is banned from the prom. Sue, feeling guilty for teasing Carrie, convinces her boyfriend Tommy Ross to invite Carrie to the prom….

So here I am, beginning my revisiting of all the Carrie films prior to watching the new version, meaning that I’m not only going to brave The Rage: Carrie 2 again but also view the first remake. First remake? Yes, there was actually a version of Carrie made in 2002 that isn’t too widely seen, probably because it was made for TV. Anyway, I’m getting ahead of myself, so let’s return to 1976 and Brian De Palma’s lyrical, touching, yet also sometimes very funny horror classic that remains the third best Stephen King-derived film [though King would probably say it’s the second best, given his feelings about a certain Stanley Kubrick film]. Though is it really a horror film? It certainly becomes one towards the end, finishing with the greatest jump scare in the history of the genre. However, prior to that, while it has its very dark elements, it doesn’t really come across as being horror at all to me. Maybe it’s just me. What it is is a twisted modern fairytale with distinct elements of Cinderella and The Ugly Duckling, the charge and feeling of its tragic story refusing to get lost in its director’s fireworks, though it’s also a superb example of De Palma’s great skill in playing with an audience as well as damn stunning filmmaking in its own right.

Carrie was the first novel by Stephen King novel to be published, basing the title character on two people he knew when he was a teacher. I’ve read the book and to be honest it isn’t too well written compared to his later work, but a powerful, affecting tale it still is, and it’s easy to see why a lot of studios were considering it. Lawrence D. Cohen’s first script followed the book closely, but successive drafts altered many details, especially towards the end. Notable changes were Sue not thinking she is pregnant, Carrie and her mother not being ugly, Carrie not reading Sue’s mind and finding out she had nothing to do with the prank, and Sue n ot having her period and beginning to write a book about the events [this was replaced by the nightmare finale]. A scripted scene from the novel where Carrie blows up petrol stations with her mind, setting the town on fire, wasn’t filmed due to cost, while opening and closing scenes of Carrie’s house being pummelled by stones weren’t used due to the effects not looking good, though if you look closely certain shots remain in the film. The auditions for Carrie occurred at the same time as those for Star Wars, and many cast members read for characters in the other film, though rumours that Sissy Spacek was originally cast as Princess Leia, and Carrie Fisher was Carrie have been dispelled. What is certain is that Spacek was going to play Chris the bully until she read for all the other female parts. De Palma cut some of Irving’s scenes from the final cut, including a love scene with William Katt. Carrie was a big hit and got good notices too, with both Spacek and Piper Laurie nominated for Oscars.

Carrie begins with the camera tracking past college girl’s changing rooms, each room showing the girls in further states of undress. It’s a typical example of De Palma titillation, the slow motion and the soft focus photography certainly aiding in making the scene quite erotic [well, if you’re a man] but also importantly contrasts the happiness of all the girls, totally at home with their bodies and indeed their burgeoning sexuality, with Carrie, who has her first period occur and is horrified. The sight of Carrie crying and reaching out for help, her nudity pathetic and awkward, and the cruelty of the other girls, is rather harrowing. After this, the film has a light tone for a while, the scenes at Bates [named after Norman of course] High School almost prefiguring films like Heathers and Mean Girls in their wry look at high school life, while the scenes with Carrie and her crazed mother, surely the most convincingly bonkers religious nut-job in films, are comic in a blacker way. Carrie realises she is telekinetic, but the film is restrained in showing this, choosing instead to emphasises the sadness of Carrie’s existence and slowly but surely, build up to the highlight in most US high schoolers: the prom. I guess by today’s standards much of this is a little slow, and as I said earlier not really horror, but it exhibits total faith in its audience’s patience.

We finally get to the prom, and cinematographer Mario Tosi shoots it like an idealised version of a prom, all lush greens and reds, emphasising the impact it has on Carrie, whose first time ‘out’ it really is. Spacek is especially superb here, with her face lighting up in wonder.Carrie virtually becomes beautiful. The background music becomes a gorgeous vocal version of composer Pino Donaggio’s main theme, Katie Irving’s ethereal voice really adding to the beauty of the scene. God Damn it, even as I write this I get emotional at Carrie finally having a happy time. De Palma is often considered something of a cold, heartless technician by critics, and he can be, but he also has a deeply heartfelt side to him that can be seen in films as diverse as Obsession and Casualties Of War. How can anyone can watch the prom section in Carrie and not be very touched? It reaches a delirious romantic climax, which seems to go on forever, when Carrie and Tommy, the boy who has been asked by his girlfriend Sue to take Carrie to the prom, and who may just be falling for her himself, dance to an even more beautiful song, the camera spinning round and round them, and they also spinning round and round on a platform, surely De Palma’s best use of this favourite device of this. Then Tommy and Carrie get up on stage, having been crowned prom king and queen, and I sometimes want to switch off the DVD at this point and leave Carrie at the shining moment of her life, beaming and popular, because I don’t want things to go wrong!

However, go wrong they do. The build-up to Carrie having the pig’s blood poured over her is a lesson in how to make the most out of what would be a tense couple of minutes and turn it into a masterclass of suspense creating. As the editing gets faster, the film actually goes into slow motion, De Palma working up the viewer into such a state that he or she ends up wanting that bloody bucket to tip. The film leaves it ambiguous as to whether everyone is actually laughing at Carrie or she is just imagining it. It’s maybe a flaw that, when Carrie lets loose [De Palma originally shot all of the prom rampage in split-screen but felt only a few shots worked so just retained those in the format], nice as well as nasty people bite the dust, but then this is the 70’s when filmmakers seemed more willing to be ambiguous and cruel and have things occur which you just don’t want to happen. Perhaps the final scene, which has nice Sue have a nightmare about Carrie, doesn’t make too much sense. Why would Carrie torment her from beyond the grave? In fact, Sue doesn’t make much sense throughout, especially when she far too quickly [possibly due to cuts] changes from Carrie’s tormentor to not only her friend but someone who wants her boyfriend to take her to the prom, her staying at home, just because she felt really bad at what she did.

But that final scene…..it truly is the best example of its kind. It has never been topped. Sue walks towards Carrie’s grave slowly, actually shot backwards to give it a dreamlike quality, kneels down to put her flowers on it, and BOOM, that bloody hand shoots out. The first time I saw it, I jumped out of my skin. The second time I saw it, I was in a roomful of over twenty people and, deciding to watch their reactions instead, saw every single one of them jump. Each time since then, even the other day when I re-watched the film for this review, I flinch a little, even though I know it’s coming. It’s so effective that you just don’t notice that Sue’s mother actually mouths the name ‘Amy’ instead of ‘Sue’ when Sue wakes up. Amy’s real-life mother played her screeen mother, and was shocked her seeing her daughter so hysterical, though aurally the mistake is covered up by the music. And would you believe it, it’s actually Spacek’s hand. The actress asked that she be buried for the scene.

Carrie is less Alfred Hitchcock-influenced than some of De Palma’s other 70′s and 80′s work, but there are touches here and there that are obvious, and there is a distinct whiff of Marnie in some scenes, climaxing in a confession scene from mother to daughter that is almost identical to a similar scene in that film. Originally Hitchcock’s favourite composer Bernard Herrmann was going to score the film, having done De Palma’s Sisters and Obsession, but he died. In the end Donaggio did such a good job, his theme for Carrie being so full of yearning, that I can’t think of Carrie with any other music. It seems that De Palma altered the score somewhat though. Several times in the film, you can hear Psycho’s famous violin slashes, but they are absent from the original soundtrack. Perhaps they are silly and too noticeable, but remind one that Carrie is partly a very dark comedy. In fact, there are some laugh-out-loud bits throughout, especially from John Travolta as the super-dumb boyfriend of the Carrie’s devious enemy Chris, played by Nancy Allen, who became De Palma’s wife and star of three of his later films. The snapshot portrait of their slightly twisted relationship [he likes to lash out, she likes to goad] is both amusing and disturbing and adds much flavour to the story. It also has a very funny blow job scene.

Spacek should have won the Oscar, let alone just have been nominated for it, but then again a film like Carrie was not the sort of picture to be rewarded by the Academy, especially back then. I sometimes think that Piper Laurie’s performance as her mother is too broad, but then there certainly are people like that out there. A great marriage of two great artists: King and De Palma, Carrie gets better each time you see it, and not just because there’s so much to notice [for example, there's a huge amount of foreshadowing of scenes, and I don't just mean the statue of St. Sebastian with the arrows in it that is repeated in the film's most gruesome death scene!]. Carrie is a fine example of the way the cinema can manipulate, but it also speaks to us, to our desires and our anxieties, and being in the end about things that we have all experienced at some time, such as coming-of-age, being an outsider [perhaps Tim Burton should have done the recent remake?] and guilt, and haven’t we all wanted at some point to burn to a crisp those who harass us?

Rating: 9/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to paul.mccluskey)
Post #: 15283
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 1/12/2013 9:28:47 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3998
Joined: 19/10/2005

Barbara Lang paints a barrier around her living room, using red paint, to protect her telekinetic daughter Rachel from demons. Barbara is put in an asylum. Years later, Rachel is a student living with foster parents. Her best friend Lisa Parker commits suicide when it turns out the Erik Stark, the boy she lost her virginity to, was part of a group where the members sleep with girls and receive points. Sue Snell is now a school counsellor and finds out that Rachel’s father, Ralph White, was also the father of Carrie. Rachel is befriended by Jesse, one of the gang, but his mates start to harass Rachel when she tells the local sheriff about Jesse and Lisa, who was underage….

So at the end of Carrie, Sue has that nightmare, and we are left with the impression that she will be haunted by Carrie for a long time to come, the telekinetic teenager’s ghost obviously not letting the fact that Sue was actually on Carrie’s side for much of the time bother her. Maybe, despite her powers, which obviously extend from beyond the grave, she mistakenly thought that Sue was part of the plot to embarrass her at the prom? In any case, if they had to make a sequel to Carrie at all [always a questionable endeavour when the original film is a classic], and one 23 years after, the idea of Carrie’s ghost haunting Sue for decades is a decent one. Carrie could haunt other people’s dreams or possess someone. But no, for The Rage: Carrie 2, they just decided to do a semi-remake of the original and tenuously link it to Carrie. It has its moments and certainly isn’t a complete and utter disaster, but seems to have little point to it, especially when it appears to invite comparisons with the 1976 movie throughout, even to the point of having flashbacks to it dotted throughout, flashbacks which just made me want to put Carrie on again and not bother any more with this contrived sequel.

It wasn’t originally intended to be anything to do with Carrie…well, except for the huge plot and character similarities. It was called The Curse, and merged a Carrie-like plot with a real-life incident where a group of high-school jocks known as The Spur Posse were involved in a sex scandal. Scheduled to commence production in 1996 with Emily Bergl in the lead, the production stalled for two years. By then, screenwriter Rafael Moreut had been asked to rewrite his script, now called Carrie 2: Say Your’re Sorry, to link it with Carrie, Carrie’s producer Paul Monash rather shamefully being behind this decision. Amy Irving agreed to appear but Sissy Spacek turned down the offer to appear to in a cameo, though she gave permission for the filmmakers to use Carrie footage of her. A few weeks into production, director Robert Mandel quit over creative differences and Roger Corman stalwart Katt Shea hurriedly took over the reins with less than a week to prepare to start filming, and two weeks’ worth of footage to reshoot so the film didn’t look like the work of two directors. Some footage was deleted from the final cut, notably the jocks eating raw steaks to show how ‘manly’ they are, another visit by Rachel to her mother, Sue having hallucinations featuring the silhouettes of girls running and screaming reminding her of the havoc she witnessed the night of the prom in 1976, and an extended version of Rachel and Jesse’s date in which Jesse teaches Rachel how to bowl. The ending was reshot, with a snake originally intending to come out of Rachel’s mouth. The film was a moderate box office success though it’s hardly talked about now.

You know you’re watching the work of a different director within seconds, where young Rachel’s seemingly bad mother paints around her, and even on her face, to supposedly protect her. Instead of De Palma’s more graceful, if still often ‘showoffy’, style, we are bombarded with quick cuts [though not as stupidly fast as it might be now], a variety of sometimes odd angles, and black and white shots. This film certainly looks very different, but its approach sometimes gets muddled: for example, the black and white usually seems to be when Carrie either uses her powers, or is getting agitated, but sometimes it isn’t. Still, the first ten minutes or so of The Rage are quite strong and certainly grab the attention. We are quickly introduced to the group of heartless jocks who sleep with girls to gain points, showing, as the opening shower scene in Carrie did, that real, and to some, ‘normal’ human behaviour is more horrible than any supernatural terror that we may later witness, as well as straightaway setting up folk who you can’t wait to get their just deserts. Then Rachel’s friend Lisa kills herself in a terrific death scene, rather elegantly jumping off the roof of the school in slow motion, her arms spread out either as if she’s trying to fly or on a cross [both were probably intended], until she plummets and bloodily smashes her head into a car. Good stuff, and it looks we are, at the very least, getting an interesting movie.

Sadly, things soon stall. The original film informed us that there was a prom very early on, and slowly but surely built up to that pivotal event, gathering more and more suspense as it did so. Here, there is little building tension and no sense of a build up to anything until, over an hour in, plans finally get underway to embarrass Rachel and she is invited to a party. Rachel uses her burgeoning powers a bit more frequently than Carrie, but too much of the film is spent on the cruel jocks, taking the attention away from Rachel. There’s also a romance between Rachel and Jesse, the gang member who has a change of heart, and it’s quite sweet and convincingly awkward, but it doesn’t tug at the heart strings like that dance Carrie had with Tommy, and is awkwardly alternated with two visits by Sue, at least giving her something to do, to Rachel’s incarcerated mother, a visit to the burned remains of the gym that Carrie burned down, and many other reminders of the original film to tell you that yes, “this is a Carrie film, it will get good, we promise, even if it doesn’t seem like it’s going to”. There’s even a really forced plot twist linking Rachel with Carrie. Meanwhile the whole thing seems to be trying too hard to be trendy with its emo/goth/indie edge, including a lot of talk about music. The original, despite its 70’s fashions, didn’t try to be trendy, and remains timeless as a result.

There are compensations of course. When Rachel finally unleashes her powers at the party, the vines of her rose tattoo spread over her body and we are treated to lots of graphic gore, some of it amusingly over-the-top in the manner of 80’s Italian horror, including glass in eyes, a harpoon going through into the back of a head and out of the mouth, and a penis being sliced off. Unfortunately the film never then leaves the party house and finishes rather suddenly, leaving the viewer somewhat unsatisfied, except to give us a lame coda which I assume was meant to recall the brilliant jump-scare ending Carrie but which wouldn’t make a five year old jump. A good effort has been made to differentiate Rachel from Carrie. She’s a stronger character, and less of an outcast, with certainly two friends of her own age, though she’s also somewhat cool [and not ugly either: when will they make a Carrie film when Carrie is not pretty? I guess it’s thought audiences won’t sit through a film with an ugly protagonist] in her Goth manner, which makes it hard to understand why she feels so lonely. Emily Bergl does her best to show the torment and changes in her character, but it’s not enough to make up for the weak writing. Carrie goes ‘psycho’ and loses control thanks to an abusive mom and years of bullying. Rachel, who seems to get over the death of her best friend very fast and fails to honour her memory by hanging out with the folk directly and indirectly responsible for her suicide, does it over the death of her dog and one sex tape, and seems to be in full control as well. Then again, Jesse is badly written too: we’re supposed to like him and believe he loves Carrie after he cheats on her just before he goes to meet her at the party.

Elsewhere the acting is mostly fine, J. Smith-Cameron especially doing a good job as Rachel’s poor mother, conveying her huge emotional pain, while the music score by Danny B. Harvey is serviceable, with two decent piano themes and some okay set pieces, though nothing nearly as memorable as Pino Donaggio’s Carrie theme. Interestingly, the massacre scene is scored with long slow notes like Donaggio. The pop songs, of which there are far more, are fairly well chosen and do sometimes back up the on-screen action well. The Rage: Carrie 2 could, truth be told, have been far far worse, and taken on its own it’s a passable watch. Its good elements don’t go anywhere near to compensating for the huge conceptual flaws though in what was a purely commerical, rather than artistic and creative, endeavour.

Rating: 5/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15284
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 1/12/2013 9:31:37 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3998
Joined: 19/10/2005

Several people, including high school senior Sue Snell and gym teacher Rita Desjarden, are being interviewed in a police station about the disappearance of high school senior Carrie White. Some months before at Ewen High School, Carrie is constantly being picked on by her classmates. At the gym during the showers, Carrie experiences her first period. Having no prior knowledge of menstruation, Carrie believes she is bleeding to death. The other girls crowd round and laugh at her, and later fill her locker full of tampons. An agitated Carrie moves a desk with her mind, and later causes a small boy to crash his bike. At home, Carrie’s unstable, fanatically religious mother Margaret hears about the locker room incident and locks her into a closet to pray for forgiveness from the ‘’curse of blood”. The next day, Carrrie’s teacher Miss Collins subjects Carrie’s tormenters to a week-long detention, but the worst of the bullies Chris Hargensen storms off the field and is banned from the prom. Sue, feeling guilty for teasing Carrie, convinces her boyfriend Tommy Ross to invite Carrie to the prom, but Chris wants revenge….

One of the best excuses for remaking a film is saying that it’s going to be closer to the book which the first film was based on. It’s a good argument, especially if the book is a literary classic or very popular, though quite often it’s a lie. Both Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Bram Stoker’s Dracula, to take two particular versions of much-filmed horror stories, were said to be very faithful to their books, and even added the author’s names to the titles, but still deviated and added their own stuff, especially the Dracula film with its reincarnation element which was actually borrowed from the 1973 TV film version. Stephen King was not much pleased with Stanley Kubrick’s film of The Shining, so 17 years later he was the main force in Mick Garris’s TV remake, to the point of actually writing the screenplay. Now I doubt that many horror fans would claim Garris’s version is anywhere near as good as Kubrick’s, but considering that Kubrick’s film deleted and altered much of the novel and the novel’s writer himself scripted the second version, it has a justifiable right to exist. Therefore you could say the same about the 2002 TV remake of Carrie, even if King wasn’t involved this time. It is much closer to the book. However, it’s also very, very poorly done, and I don’t think it’s a great loss that not many people have seen it compared to the 1976 and now the 2013 versions.

Amazingly, this version was intended as the pilot for a Carrie TV series. Yes, you read that right. Carrie, who you therefore already know survives, and Sue were supposed to go from town to town not just dealing with the events that have occurred and Carrie’s powers, but solving mysteries. A bad idea if you’re supposedly making the pilot to be closer to the book! Writer Bryan Fuller, currently doing good work on Hannibal, and director David Carson were TV veterans, but all Fuller had to do was copy the book to the letter until the ending, and this he almost did. Angela Bettis, whose eye-blinks were digitally removed from the final third of the film to sustain the illusion she was in a trance, was recruited for the role of Carrie White after the people involved in the project saw her work in May. Actor David Keith asked for some positive comments about religion to be put in the script, and a psychic investigator played by Jasmine Guy was added to the story and would have been in the TV series, but her part was cut out. Perhaps even then they thought the series may not happen. Aired exactly 26 years and one day after the release date of the 1976 version of Carrie, it failed to attract much interest and viewing figures were low. The planned series was cancelled, and for that we can be most thankful.

So, ignoring the ending, what we basically have here in King’s book transplanted on to the TV screen, albeit with a bit of trendy so-called teen-speak such as: “This isn’t over! This is far from over! This isn’t even in the same area code as over!” The plot is the same, and watching this version for the first time, two things struck me about Brian De Palma’s version: firstly, how much dialogue was transferred from the book to Lawrence D. Cohen’s screenplay, and how well an exercise in condensing and deciding what would and wouldn’t work on screen it was. The TV movie does what the book does and frames the story around police interviews after the fact, but this doesn’t work because we know certain characters survive, it weakens the tension, and many of the flashbacks are events which characters would not have been privy too. We get to know Chris more and meet her father, and this extra detail does flesh out the tale, but it makes what is already a really sluggish movie even slower, while the odd important detail, like Sue thinking she’s pregnant, is still AWOL. Where the film really falls down though is in the restoration of some more fantastical moments, which are ‘achieved’ [if that’s too strong a word] with truly shoddy CGI effects. We get to see Carrie destroy the town, but it’s so brief and unconvincing I don’t know why they bothered, while the early meteor shower is hilarious in its execution. Actually, we see a meteor just before the opening credits, so you can’t say you’re not warned about the quality of what you’re going to see! Bad CG seems to play a part in many shots throughout, like a potentially good aeriel view of the prom just after the blood has been tipped.

The good intentions of this version are sunk by the shoddy way it is done. I don’t know if I’ve seen any of David Carson’s other TV work, but he proves himself to be a director of near-incompetence, even going by the standards of network TV, along with cinematographer Victor Goss. Endless and often inappropriate close-ups, hardly any establishing shots, a camera that is unable to keep still even when it’s trying to etc. – it all results in a very claustrophobic experience. Often it seems like one person is filming the events and trying to capture it all on their camera, it’s that bad. What is really sad is that this kind of crappy filmmaking is seen a great deal in cinemas now. A modicum of style is exhibited during some scenes where Carrie’s rage is building, with discolourisation and quick images, but these bits often take forever, even when nothing ends up happening, and when it does it’s ludicrously over-the-top, like the kid on the bicycle who flies ten feet into the air and smacks into a tree. Something that is done quite well is the build up to the tipping of the blood on Carrie, the cutting and shots often well-chosen, though the bucket is so big it’s hard to believe it could remain unnoticed and balanced for a lengthy period of time, and the rampage afterwards is pathetic. The sequence goes on twice as long as De Palma’s and feels four times as long due to the lackadaisical handling, repetition of shots, and avoidance of anything shocking or graphic, though the god-awful CG tables flying around are undoubtedly very funny. A zoom inside somebody to show their intestinal organs is memorable though.

Something that is handled well are the scenes between Carrie and her mother. Rather than in the black comedy manner of the original films, they are done very seriously and are actually more disturbing as a result. Patricia Clarkson portrays Margaret White in a very restrained manner and makes her very believable and frightening. Angela Bettis is strong as Carrie too, especially in her awkward responses to being asked to the prom. She’s not quite as good as Sissy Spacek, but gives her a run for her money in certain scenes. However, this film seems to almost ignore Carrie’s pre-existing rage, and present her telepathic attacks as something closer to demonic possession than the actions of an abused and broken girl with a potentially dangerous power. She goes into a trance, so much so it doesn’t even seem like she’s doing the climactic killing and destruction herself. It seems that someone or something else has actually taking her over. And then there’s that ending, which remains extremely lame [even with a weak attempt at a jump scare involving somebody’s ghost] even if you consider why it was changed the way it was. However, because the majority of the rest of the movie is so poor, it can hardly be said to ruin it.

Overall the acting is weak – for God’s sake Tobias Mehler as Tommy even makes William Katt seem like a good actor. Meanwhile Laura Karpman’s score drones away in the background, sometimes in a semi-techno manner, sometimes vaguely trying to copy Pino Donaggio’s 1976 work. It often irritatingly plays during many scenes when it isn’t needed. Well, it has taken me thirteen years to see this version of Carrie, and in no way shape or form was it worth the wait. The fact that for much of the time it’s so close to the book, a book which, though it isn’t anywhere near King’s best work, I have read and enjoyed, actually makes it more painful to sit through, and, in the end, one wonders why they bothered when they obviously didn’t have the money or the talent to do it properly. Perhaps the 2013 film will be the one to do it right?….maybe?

Rating: 4/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15285
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 1/12/2013 9:35:45 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3998
Joined: 19/10/2005

Alone in her home, Margaret White, a deeply religious woman, gives birth to a baby girl. She initially intends to kill the infant, but then changes her mind. Years later, her daughter Carrie, a shy, under-confident girl, nears her graduation from Ewen High School in Maine. While showering after gym class, she experiences her first period. Having no prior knowledge of menstruation, Carrie believes she is bleeding to death, and the other girls laugh and tease her. Margaret, believing menstruation is a sin, locks her into a closet to pray for forgiveness. Carrie’s screams cause a crack to appear on the door. The next day, Carrie’s teacher Miss Desjardin begins for Carrie’s tormenters a week-long boot-camp-style detention, but the worst of the bullies Chris Hargensen refuses and is banned from the prom. Sue, feeling guilty for teasing Carrie, convinces her boyfriend Tommy Ross to invite Carrie to the prom, but Chris wants revenge….

So at last here it is, the reason I decided to spend the last few days with Carrie White and her equally telekinetic successor: the 2013 Carrie remake, and , to be honest, I was initially quite excited about this film when it began production and word was going around that it was going to follow the book rather than Brian De Palma’s 1976 film. Yes, the original is a classic, but as I wrote in one of my other Carrie film reviews, if you have to remake a movie, sticking closely to the book that inspired the first film is one of the most valid reasons you can have. What really got me ‘buzzed’ was the very first teaser trailer where the camera is flying over a destroyed town and we hear the voices of the people talking about Carrie until we finally arrive at Carrie walking down the street. At last, we would get to see Carrie wreck the whole town, a scene which De Palma wanted to film but ran out of money. Sadly, reports of reshoots and re-edits dampened my enthusiasm, though finally getting around to viewing the 2002 Carrie TV movie the other day, a film which did stick closely to the book except for its stupid ending but was just very poorly made, got me all excited again, because the TV film was a missed opportunity and could certainly be improved on.

Well, this version of Carrie is….decent. It’s certainly no disaster, but is a bit pointless too. I guess that if the 1976 film didn’t exist, then it would seem pretty good. Unfortunately, it does, so this remake just suffers by comparison while, to be honest, the many alterations throughout production don’t seem to have helped and may actually have weakened the film. It seems that the initial idea was to film the book [they even shot the interview scenes, though I’m glad they didn’t include those as they weakened the 2002 version], but then they decided more and more to refashion the film into a copy of the original movie. So what we have now just feels like a carbon copy, with many scenes that are almost identical, of the original film with a few bits from the book restored. Having a virtual scene-by-scene remake like this almost always harms the film in question because it constantly invites comparison with its predecessor, especially if said predecessor is the superior film. If you haven’t seen the original, then you can do far worse than see this version. It’s a good story, has some effective scenes, and some strong performances. However, for much of its length it feels less like a dark fairy tale and more like a twisted version of a superhero origin story, and I can’t be the only one who is thoroughly sick of those!

This version opens very strongly with Carrie’s birth and her mother Margaret grabbing a very large pair of scissors and coming very close to killing the poor child. Julianne Moore [who had the ignominy of also starring the horrible Psycho remake, and actually replaced Jodie Foster for this film just like she did in Hannibal]’s acting is very powerful and the lighting is good too, this and the scenes immediately after alerting one to the fact that, at the least, this isn’t going to be visually grotty like quite a few recent horror remakes [Platinum Dunes horror films in particular seem to share this look] seem to be. We then move on to an ‘invented’ [new to the book and films] scene of Carrie and her classmates in the school swimming pool which nicely establishes how isolated and badly treated she is, and then the obligatory shower scene, though being in the infuriatingly politically correct times we currently live in, we obviously can’t have lots of boobs on show any more. Still, when the worst of the bullies Chris records Carrie’s confused and anguished reaction to having her first period and having tampons thrown at her, and puts it on the internet, this version seems to have found a way to update the story and make it more believable and relevant for our times while keeping the gist of it.

However, this Carrie is so impatient about showing Carrie’s burgeoning powers that it sometimes feels like we are watching a remake of Matilda rather than Carrie, and there is no surprise when Carrie finally lets rip at the prom, though it’s nice to see Carrie lock her mother in the closet after suffering through three films of her being tormented by her! The tale’s power means that when Carrie goes to the prom and, for a short while, her unhappy life becomes happy, you’ll still probably feel a bit emotional, though in my case it may have been because I was thinking of the poignancy and heartbreaking romanticism of the original Carrie. Cinematographer Steve Yedlin even has the camera revolve around Carrie and Tommy during their dance, though only for a few seconds. Sadly there’s no real build-up to the tipping of the blood on Carrie – it just happens – and it’s painfully obvious that the scene has been CGI ‘enhanced’. Carrie’s rampage has more gore and gruesome deaths [though The Rage: Carrie 2 still has the monopoly on that], bu it leads to what looked to me like really clumsy evidence of studio-enforced reshooting. Carrie is massacring everyone, and one major character seems to be getting killed, but then we cut away, and soon after we get a badly shot scene where we see that almost everyone, including the person who seemed to be getting killed, seems to have escaped the prom and are being taken care of by the paramedics. After that….well, the town scene….it isn’t there! Yep, the scene more than hinted at in that great teaser has been cut out. I suppose we should be thankful that it wasn’t replaced by footage filmed on an obviously different film stock like the final third of World War Z. And final jump scare?….there isn’t one of those either, just a stupid, tacky final shot.

Kimberley Peirce’s film doesn’t exhibit as much style as De Palma’s, but it does look nice throughout, cinematographer Steve Yedlin doing a great job throughout, especially during some gorgeous ‘magic hour’ lensing when Carrie ventures out to the prom with Tommy, and some great individual shots like multiple Carries reflected in a shattered mirror. A few choice bits from the book either not included in the 2002 movie or done badly [falling rocks! Pregnancy!]] are included here, and at last we have a version of Carrie where most of the teenagers are played by actual teenagers, including Carrie herself. However, it soon becomes apparent that Chloë Grace Moretz, who is undoubtedly a good young actress, it not quite up to the part. She overdoes the character’s awkwardness with her looks and mannerisms, but also overdoes the telekinetic parts, looking like she’s practising Tai Chi with all her arm-waving rather than unleashing deadly powers. She also seems far too calculating, but then again, she’s not helped by a confused script that seems to suggest her ‘gift’ is a good thing. Julianne Moore is good as the mother throughout – she’s kind of the middle ground between the 1976 and 2002 portrayals, being mostly calm but liable to explode – but this version makes Carrie stronger than her for much of the time. It’s all very well having stronger, more ‘assertive’ females these days, but this approach just doesn’t work for every story.

The special effects aren’t always much good – a particularly bad example being the crappy blood dripping upwards from Carrie just after the pig’s blood is dropped on her – and the supporting characters aren’t very memorable this time round, though this version does go some way to correcting a problem with the original film – Sue’s sudden switch from Carrie’s enemy to Carrie’s friend. Marco Beltrami’s score provides some solid musical backing, though it lacks a memorable theme that could have helped in giving what is a very touching story some more emotion. What is it with all this ‘holding back’ with film scores of late? Anyway, this version of Carrie is just about good enough to hold its own, and is far superior to the shoddy 2002 film, but, to be honest, there’s little point to it, and considering how great the original film is, I don’t really know why they bothered. Saying that, I do have a sneaking suspicion though that a Director’s Cut or Extended Version, something for which a petition is already going around for, could improve this film quite considerably. Hopefully I’ll be reviewing that in time and giving it a far better write-up.

Rating: 6.5/10

< Message edited by Dr Lenera -- 2/12/2013 8:26:27 AM >


_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15286
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 2/12/2013 6:54:16 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6730
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

Haven't been very active on this thread for a little while, but I have a new review for you to tuck into. Please don't hate me for enjoying it!


.

Certainly no better than De Palma's original film, Carrie is ultimately an unnecessary remake – but a good unnecessary remake. What it lacks in gritty rawness it makes us for in sleek visuals and fine acting talent, and while the finale may go on too long and end up relying just a bit too heavily on CGI, it still gives us that gut-curdling feeling of anger and fear that concludes to be Carrie's last straw.

4/5
Dr Lenera
Hoping to see this tomorrow night, and not expecting it to match or better the original, but going by reviews like this I know i'll enjoy it.
quote:


 

Kimberley Peirce’s film doesn’t exhibit as much style as De Palma’s, but it does look nice throughout, cinematographer Steve Yedlin doing a great job throughout, especially during some gorgeous ‘magic hour’ lensing when Carrie ventures out to the prom with Tommy, and some great individual shots like multiple Carries reflected in a shattered mirror. A few choice bits from the book either not included in the 2002 movie or done badly [falling rocks! Pregnancy!]] are included here, and at last we have a version of Carrie where most of the teenagers are played by actual teenagers, including Carrie herself. However, it soon becomes apparent that Chloë Grace Moretz, who is undoubtedly a good young actress, it not quite up to the part. She overdoes the character’s awkwardness with her looks and mannerisms, but also overdoes the telekinetic parts, looking like she’s practising Tai Chi with all her arm-waving rather than unleashing deadly powers. She also seems far too calculating, but then again, she’s not helped by a confused script that seems to suggest her ‘gift’ is a good thing. Julianne Moore is good as the mother throughout – she’s kind of the middle ground between the 1976 and 2002 portrayals, being mostly calm but liable to explode – but this version makes Carrie stronger than her for much of the time. It’s all very well having stronger, more ‘assertive’ females these days, but this approach just doesn’t work for every story.

The special effects aren’t always much good – a particularly bad example being the crappy blood dripping upwards from Carrie just after the pig’s blood is dropped on her – and the supporting characters aren’t very memorable this time round, though this version does go some way to correcting a problem with the original film – Sue’s sudden switch from Carrie’s enemy to Carrie’s friend. Marco Beltrami’s score provides some solid musical backing, though it lacks a memorable theme that could have helped in giving what is a very touching story some more emotion. What is it with all this ‘holding back’ with film scores of late? Anyway, this version of Carrie is just about good enough to hold its own, and is far superior to the shoddy 2002 film, but, to be honest, there’s little point to it, and considering how great the original film is, I don’t really know why they bothered. Saying that, I do have a sneaking suspicion though that a Director’s Cut or Extended Version, something for which a petition is already going around for, could improve this film quite considerably. Hopefully I’ll be reviewing that in time and giving it a far better write-up.

Interesting only average going by the good Dr's review, and more rumours of a director's extended cut, make's you wonder how films get made at all now, with the suits put there oar in to too many films. 

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15287
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 2/12/2013 7:05:52 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6730
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

A bigger and, I hope, better review




Spacek should have won the Oscar, let alone just have been nominated for it, but then again a film like Carrie was not the sort of picture to be rewarded by the Academy, especially back then. I sometimes think that Piper Laurie's performance as her mother is too broad, but then there certainly are people like that out there. A great marriage of two great artists: King and De Palma, Carrie gets better each time you see it, and not just because there's so much to notice [for example, there's a huge amount of foreshadowing of scenes, and I don't just mean the statue of St. Sebastian with the arrows in it that is repeated in the film's most gruesome death scene!]. Carrie is a fine example of the way the cinema can manipulate, but it also speaks to us, to our desires and our anxieties, and being in the end about things that we have all experienced at some time, such as coming-of-age, being an outsider [perhaps Tim Burton should have done the recent remake?] and guilt, and haven't we all wanted at some point to burn to a crisp those who harass us?

Rating: 9/10

Yeah!!  now this is an awesome review of one of my favourite horror films based on a King book, and of course it not only launched a tide of King based films but put De Palma on the map. And yes Spacek should have won the Oscar, but this type of film never gets the praise from the Hollywood big heads that it should, and I still think Piper Laurie, is the scariest mother put to film, and though some may feel she goes over the top, well there wrong. I have met a religious frantic screwball mother who would fill that role and then some, (the Mother Inlaw), and i'm not joking, every time I watch Carrie she comes to mind, of course to her i'll always be a child of SATAN so no love lost there, but the way she treated her daughter because she would not be saved, and except her version of the Bible, is why this world is screwed up. End of Rant.  

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15288
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 3/12/2013 8:43:12 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3998
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

A bigger and, I hope, better review




Spacek should have won the Oscar, let alone just have been nominated for it, but then again a film like Carrie was not the sort of picture to be rewarded by the Academy, especially back then. I sometimes think that Piper Laurie's performance as her mother is too broad, but then there certainly are people like that out there. A great marriage of two great artists: King and De Palma, Carrie gets better each time you see it, and not just because there's so much to notice [for example, there's a huge amount of foreshadowing of scenes, and I don't just mean the statue of St. Sebastian with the arrows in it that is repeated in the film's most gruesome death scene!]. Carrie is a fine example of the way the cinema can manipulate, but it also speaks to us, to our desires and our anxieties, and being in the end about things that we have all experienced at some time, such as coming-of-age, being an outsider [perhaps Tim Burton should have done the recent remake?] and guilt, and haven't we all wanted at some point to burn to a crisp those who harass us?

Rating: 9/10

Yeah!!  now this is an awesome review of one of my favourite horror films based on a King book, and of course it not only launched a tide of King based films but put De Palma on the map. And yes Spacek should have won the Oscar, but this type of film never gets the praise from the Hollywood big heads that it should, and I still think Piper Laurie, is the scariest mother put to film, and though some may feel she goes over the top, well there wrong. I have met a religious frantic screwball mother who would fill that role and then some, (the Mother Inlaw), and i'm not joking, every time I watch Carrie she comes to mind, of course to her i'll always be a child of SATAN so no love lost there, but the way she treated her daughter because she would not be saved, and except her version of the Bible, is why this world is screwed up. End of Rant.  


Bloody hell Bill, I was only saying to someone the other day that mother in laws are not as bad as their reputation!

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15289
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 4/12/2013 7:54:08 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6730
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera


quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera

A bigger and, I hope, better review




Spacek should have won the Oscar, let alone just have been nominated for it, but then again a film like Carrie was not the sort of picture to be rewarded by the Academy, especially back then. I sometimes think that Piper Laurie's performance as her mother is too broad, but then there certainly are people like that out there. A great marriage of two great artists: King and De Palma, Carrie gets better each time you see it, and not just because there's so much to notice [for example, there's a huge amount of foreshadowing of scenes, and I don't just mean the statue of St. Sebastian with the arrows in it that is repeated in the film's most gruesome death scene!]. Carrie is a fine example of the way the cinema can manipulate, but it also speaks to us, to our desires and our anxieties, and being in the end about things that we have all experienced at some time, such as coming-of-age, being an outsider [perhaps Tim Burton should have done the recent remake?] and guilt, and haven't we all wanted at some point to burn to a crisp those who harass us?

Rating: 9/10

Yeah!!  now this is an awesome review of one of my favourite horror films based on a King book, and of course it not only launched a tide of King based films but put De Palma on the map. And yes Spacek should have won the Oscar, but this type of film never gets the praise from the Hollywood big heads that it should, and I still think Piper Laurie, is the scariest mother put to film, and though some may feel she goes over the top, well there wrong. I have met a religious frantic screwball mother who would fill that role and then some, (the Mother Inlaw), and i'm not joking, every time I watch Carrie she comes to mind, of course to her i'll always be a child of SATAN so no love lost there, but the way she treated her daughter because she would not be saved, and except her version of the Bible, is why this world is screwed up. End of Rant.  


Bloody hell Bill, I was only saying to someone the other day that mother in laws are not as bad as their reputation!

I could tell you stories that would really hammer home my point, from the burning of my wife's rock vinyl collection, with satanic albums by  Ozzy, Thin Lizzy, Survivor, Simon & Garfunkel, ELO etc, all piled up and burned in the front garden for all to see. religious tracks posted to me in my home, about the evil of Motorbikes, Rock music and how the Pope is the Anit Christ. That was just a touch of the madness, it's the tame bit.

Anyway got to see:
CARRIE (2013)
 
Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz), a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother (Julianne Moore), who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom.



A reimagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie by horror writer Stephen King, or to be more honest Brian De Palma’s Carrie from 1976, for this is what it truly is an almost shot for shot remake. I feel there was an opportunity lost here by the director. Saying that I personally think Peirce's did a fine job in updating its dominant themes of hormonal confusion, bullying and what it can lead too, plus the dangers of fundamentalist religion of the extreme right kind, and the harm it can do, from persons who believe every one is wrong except them. Notting has changed that much since the 70's when Carrie was first unleashed upon the world of cinema. This is where the film scores some great points, and though I still feel the original mother and daughter of the 1976 film are still unbeatable, the cast here do a fine job, but just don't feel as convincing. There's also more blood and gore on show, another bonus, with a longer climax, plus lots of CGI on show which is a minus to be honest, for yes on the whole it works, but there are places where you go no!!!

There's also the fact we see Carries powers to early, which dampens the final show down, and there's noting new added to the story, and there are some great bits of the original book that could have lifted this to a great remake. So in the end it will always be the remake of De Palma's classic horror, rather than a great re boot like Rob Zombies Halloween, and it will never be up there with the classic horror remakes of The Thing, The Fly etc. Yet I did enjoy it, it is well produced except for some not so good CGI in the great climax, and it kept me entertained, plus strangely I even liked it's direction, though it falls way short of the master De Palma's awesome style. A decent remake in the end that could have been so much better, and yes worth the viewing, for it can hold it's head high as one of the better remakes of this year anyway. But I can't see me adding it to my collection, but I will watch it again on LoveFilm or Sky, as we no longer have a video store in this part of the world. 6/10 

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15290
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 4/12/2013 10:23:03 PM   
Mister Coe

 

Posts: 1561
Joined: 20/10/2012
Agreed Evil Bill. Saw it today and it was a fairly decent remake...

The second horror remake from Miss Moretz that I'd have enjoyed a lot more if I hadn't seen the original...

A very talented young actress who needs to have someone put her into better films...


_____________________________

Say what now?

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15291
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 5/12/2013 9:00:38 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3998
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: evil bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Lenera



I could tell you stories that would really hammer home my point, from the burning of my wife's rock vinyl collection, with satanic albums by  Ozzy, Thin Lizzy, Survivor, Simon & Garfunkel, ELO etc, all piled up and burned in the front garden for all to see. religious tracks posted to me in my home, about the evil of Motorbikes, Rock music and how the Pope is the Anit Christ. That was just a touch of the madness, it's the tame bit.

Anyway got to see:
CARRIE (2013)
 
Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz), a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother (Julianne Moore), who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom.



A reimagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie by horror writer Stephen King, or to be more honest Brian De Palma’s Carrie from 1976, for this is what it truly is an almost shot for shot remake. I feel there was an opportunity lost here by the director. Saying that I personally think Peirce's did a fine job in updating its dominant themes of hormonal confusion, bullying and what it can lead too, plus the dangers of fundamentalist religion of the extreme right kind, and the harm it can do, from persons who believe every one is wrong except them. Notting has changed that much since the 70's when Carrie was first unleashed upon the world of cinema. This is where the film scores some great points, and though I still feel the original mother and daughter of the 1976 film are still unbeatable, the cast here do a fine job, but just don't feel as convincing. There's also more blood and gore on show, another bonus, with a longer climax, plus lots of CGI on show which is a minus to be honest, for yes on the whole it works, but there are places where you go no!!!

There's also the fact we see Carries powers to early, which dampens the final show down, and there's noting new added to the story, and there are some great bits of the original book that could have lifted this to a great remake. So in the end it will always be the remake of De Palma's classic horror, rather than a great re boot like Rob Zombies Halloween, and it will never be up there with the classic horror remakes of The Thing, The Fly etc. Yet I did enjoy it, it is well produced except for some not so good CGI in the great climax, and it kept me entertained, plus strangely I even liked it's direction, though it falls way short of the master De Palma's awesome style. A decent remake in the end that could have been so much better, and yes worth the viewing, for it can hold it's head high as one of the better remakes of this year anyway. But I can't see me adding it to my collection, but I will watch it again on LoveFilm or Sky, as we no longer have a video store in this part of the world. 6/10 


Yikes!!!

And again we agree on a film, rating just half a star different. I'll probably pick it up when the price drops to a fiver.

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to evil bill)
Post #: 15292
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 5/12/2013 9:01:14 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3998
Joined: 19/10/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Agreed Evil Bill. Saw it today and it was a fairly decent remake...

The second horror remake from Miss Moretz that I'd have enjoyed a lot more if I hadn't seen the original...

A very talented young actress who needs to have someone put her into better films...




Agree entirely.


_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 15293
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 6/12/2013 6:20:06 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3248
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford
Saw two films in the past few days...

SAVING MR BANKS: A nice film that won't trouble your grandmother on a Sunday afternoon. It wasn't my choice to watch but my mates. Not as terrible as I was expecting but certainly a good 20-25mins too long and definitely feels like the kind of film which will be nominated for many awards but probably win very few! Overall: 3/5

CARRIE (2013): I felt old watching this remake! That was my overwhelming feeling throughout the 90min running time. I actually said to my friend at the end that it reminded me very much of the teen horrors that came along one after the other in the late 90s (The Faculty, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc). It very much had that teen feel to it. Like Evil Bill though I rather enjoyed it and I thought the opening with the baby/scissors was quite nasty for a 15 cert (as indeed was the windscreen scene at the end!). I haven't read the book in years but as far as I was aware Carrie experimenting with her powers early on in the film was in the book(??) and this was one of the areas they wanted to expand upon in the remake. The film was proficient in what it set out to do, as always Moritz is very watchable although I still think she is far too pretty to play the dowdy lead character. As for the CGI, yes it did go a bit OTT but it wasn't totally awful. And well, as for the final scene I prefer the original film's ending but again I can't remember the book's ending!?!? Definitely worth catching at the cinema, I might even add this one to my BR collection when it comes out. Overall: 3.5/5

_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 15294
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 7/12/2013 12:23:12 AM   
Whistler


Posts: 3133
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: losthighway

Saw two films in the past few days...

SAVING MR BANKS: A nice film that won't trouble your grandmother on a Sunday afternoon. It wasn't my choice to watch but my mates. Not as terrible as I was expecting but certainly a good 20-25mins too long and definitely feels like the kind of film which will be nominated for many awards but probably win very few! Overall: 3/5



I really loved it. Sweet, charming and heart-warming. Why did you expect it to be terrible?

(in reply to losthighway)
Post #: 15295
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 8/12/2013 12:37:28 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 3133
Joined: 22/11/2006
'KILL YOUR DARLINGS'

Director: John Krokidas
Writers: Austin Bunn, John Krokidas
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Dane DeHaan, Michael C. Hall, Elizabeth Olsen, Jack Huston, Ben Foster, David Cross, Jennifer Jason Leigh
Running time: 104 minutes
Certification: 15

A young Allen Ginsberg (Radcliffe) attends Columbia University in 1944 where he meets Lucien (DeHaan), an abstract-minded aspiring philosopher with worldly ideas on art and culture. What begins as a sophisticated, caring friendship soon turns sinister as a murder plot unravels.


Kill Your Darlings is a debut foray into feature filmmaking for John Krokidas, and it’s with this is mind that we become all the more impressed by it. Directed with supreme confidence and bravado from the opening movement til the last, despite the flaws that can be found within it, the film (based on true events) is always completely sure of itself and its surroundings. As we center on the young writers of the beat era, we open proceedings with a blustery vibe; swing tracks accompany us on journeys through New York’s lower east side as we visit raucous parties inhabited by young, fight-the-system philosophers who need to get sozzled before anything coherent comes out of their mouths, and jazz clubs packed with smoking sophisticates subtextually analyzing the world. We’re tricked into thinking we’re going to see a Social Network in the 40s, a film about writers writing and inspiration striking through deep-headed, worldly conversations fueled by Chianti.

But just as we’ve come to terms with that, the film takes a striking turn and becomes something far more telling of its title. As the relationship between Allen and Lucien begins to fracture, murder rears its ugly head and takes a hold of proceedings, bringing a real dark, somber air to the picture. In no small part due to being a well-handled shift in tone from Krokidas, who clearly has a knack for pacing and displays promising signs of wicked individual style, the script deserves equal plaudits for being so intelligent yet aggressive. Just as Ginsberg and co. are attempting to breaking the rules of rhyme and verse, Austin Bunn and Krokidas’ script breaks the mould by lathering the opening act with melodious dialogue before juxtaposing it with rambunctious set-pieces in an altogether different tale.

Yet oddly, when the drama does make this shift, everything becomes a little less interesting. Despite the enormity of the new subject matter, the murder plot proves to yield less compelling interactions between the characters – chiefly Allen and Lucien. Perhaps it’s to do with too many plot strands coming into the fray and getting lost within each other that we begin to lose grasp of a central narrative.

Daniel Radcliffe’s Potter days are fast diminishing behind him as he swiftly moves through the film world taking on interesting, tough roles. I’m a big fan of the guy; not only is he a brilliant actor but he’s really intelligent, articulate, and seems to be a genuinely nice guy who cares deeply about his craft. One of the most refreshing things about the way he’s bridged the gap between Harry Potter and his adult career is that he’s never tried too hard to claim controversial or “grown-up” roles for the sake of getting out of that typecast image. Often a young teen star will go out of their way to become the polar opposite of how their fame began (*cough* Miley Cyrus), but the roles Radcliffe has taken since his Potter days feel natural to him. Any that have been “grown-up” – his portrayal of Ginsberg here would certainly fall into that category – are incidental to him being perfect for the role. For that reason, I think he’s one of the best actors of his generation.

As Ginsberg, Radcliffe really commits himself. There’s no doubt that this is his best performance to date, but it’s a role that requires a certain amount of courage to get through some of the more headline-grabbing scenes. Listening to Radcliffe discuss the role, he clearly had no qualms about performing some of the actions required of him, and simply cared about making a great film, which I find admirable. While it’s undeniable that some of those said actions are a times a little uncomfortable to watch, you can’t help but be won over by his strength and maturity.

Dane DeHaan is equally as brilliant. He’s been rising to prominence over the last few years with excellent turns in the likes of Chronicle, Lawless and The Place Beyond The Pines, and his performance opposite Radcliffe in Kill Your Darlings is once more simply effortless and searing. The balance he brings to Lucien is scary at times, drifting from confident, philosophical and blase to subdued, fractured and intimidated, and then back again, in the same scene. It would be nice to see the two of them begin to garner awards attention.

Forgetting, for a moment, the main names, Kill Your Darlings is shot absolutely beautifully by Reed Morano, who has clearly worked hard with her director to capture the essence of the 40s with deftly-lit sets and a muskiness that might be intentional or might just be the smoke billowing from the characters’ mouths. The more intimate sequences, like the late night Jazz clubs and seedy parties, are particularly impressive, and bring us into the scene with Allen and Lucien rather than just have us sit back and watch it.

While Kill Your Darlings isn’t always entirely satisfying dramatically, it’s an intelligent and subversive film that boasts some really, really impressive performances and exciting potential from a vibrant director.

4/5

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15296
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 9/12/2013 4:49:02 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6730
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mister Coe

Agreed Evil Bill. Saw it today and it was a fairly decent remake...

The second horror remake from Miss Moretz that I'd have enjoyed a lot more if I hadn't seen the original...

A very talented young actress who needs to have someone put her into better films...


Yes this is one actress that deserves bigger roles, and hopefully with two decent remakes where she more than carried the film, she gets a break into the big time.
quote:

losthighway
 
CARRIE (2013): I felt old watching this remake! That was my overwhelming feeling throughout the 90min running time. I actually said to my friend at the end that it reminded me very much of the teen horrors that came along one after the other in the late 90s (The Faculty, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc). It very much had that teen feel to it. Like Evil Bill though I rather enjoyed it and I thought the opening with the baby/scissors was quite nasty for a 15 cert (as indeed was the windscreen scene at the end!). I haven't read the book in years but as far as I was aware Carrie experimenting with her powers early on in the film was in the book(??) and this was one of the areas they wanted to expand upon in the remake. The film was proficient in what it set out to do, as always Moritz is very watchable although I still think she is far too pretty to play the dowdy lead character. As for the CGI, yes it did go a bit OTT but it wasn't totally awful. And well, as for the final scene I prefer the original film's ending but again I can't remember the book's ending!?!? Definitely worth catching at the cinema, I might even add this one to my BR collection when it comes out. Overall: 3.5/5

It was very much like those Teen horror films of both the 80's and 90's, and yeah your right they have added in more from the book, and i'll be buying this one on Blu-Ray too, and I must dig out ye old King book, which I have somewhere buried on paperback. That's if it's still readable of course.

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Mister Coe)
Post #: 15297
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 11/12/2013 7:01:32 PM   
evil bill


Posts: 6730
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

'KILL YOUR DARLINGS'

Director: John Krokidas
Writers: Austin Bunn, John Krokidas
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Dane DeHaan, Michael C. Hall, Elizabeth Olsen, Jack Huston, Ben Foster, David Cross, Jennifer Jason Leigh
Running time: 104 minutes
Certification: 15
.


Daniel Radcliffe's Potter days are fast diminishing behind him as he swiftly moves through the film world taking on interesting, tough roles. I'm a big fan of the guy; not only is he a brilliant actor but he's really intelligent, articulate, and seems to be a genuinely nice guy who cares deeply about his craft. One of the most refreshing things about the way he's bridged the gap between Harry Potter and his adult career is that he's never tried too hard to claim controversial or "grown-up” roles for the sake of getting out of that typecast image. Often a young teen star will go out of their way to become the polar opposite of how their fame began (*cough* Miley Cyrus), but the roles Radcliffe has taken since his Potter days feel natural to him. Any that have been "grown-up” – his portrayal of Ginsberg here would certainly fall into that category – are incidental to him being perfect for the role. For that reason, I think he's one of the best actors of his generation.

As Ginsberg, Radcliffe really commits himself. There's no doubt that this is his best performance to date, but it's a role that requires a certain amount of courage to get through some of the more headline-grabbing scenes. Listening to Radcliffe discuss the role, he clearly had no qualms about performing some of the actions required of him, and simply cared about making a great film, which I find admirable. While it's undeniable that some of those said actions are a times a little uncomfortable to watch, you can't help but be won over by his strength and maturity.

.

While Kill Your Darlings isn't always entirely satisfying dramatically, it's an intelligent and subversive film that boasts some really, really impressive performances and exciting potential from a vibrant director.

4/5

Sounds like Daniel has come of age in this picture, more so than his role in MANIC, but then he did hold up well in it just not to my taste. But I will search this one out and give it ago, if it's on LoveFilm that is, as I can't see it turning up at a cinema near me.

Now here's a late look at a film I watched last week, IE Friday night, and it's a fun and nasty surprise in equal measure.
CURSE OF CHUCKY (2013)

Nica (Fiona Dourif) who has been wheelchair-bound since birth, and her mother Sarah (Chantal Quesnelle) who live in an isolated old house, receive a package containing a doll named Chucky (voiced by Brad Dourif), they immediately think there is a mistake. Sarah throws it in the garbage, but during the night she is found dead and Chucky is sat on a chair in the living room, they all think it's  suicide, but Nica is not so sure. Sister Barb (Danielle Bisutti), Barb's husband Ian (Brennan Elliot), their daughter Alice (Summer H. Howell), and Alice's nanny Jill (Maitland McConnell) come to her aid and for the funeral. But during the night, there are more mysterious deaths and Nica discovers that the package was sent from the evidence depositary. She also researches on the Internet and suspects that Chucky might be behind the murders.

This may be a low-budget horror sequel, that went straight to video but by setting the film in a haunted house-style horror, it returns  Chucky to being a creepy doll again, while still maintaining the dark humour that the first two films had, and for me this is what I was hoping for.Child's Play franchise. Series creator Don Mancini returns to direct from his own script, which is surprisingly restrained in the first half, building suspense, fleshing out characters, even building a back story in flash back for those that may have forgotten where chucky came from. Then in the second half all hell breaks loose, as Chucky goes to work, in a stylishly twisted way that brings back memories of the first two Child Play films and Bride Of Chucky. Fiona Dourif as Nica is a great addition to the role of heroine in horror films, she plays it for all it's worth, and i'm sure dad was glad to see her join him in a film franchise he rules, as I could never ever see anyone else do Chucky like Brad Dourif. Here we have a film that feels so much like a old worn pair of jeans you just can't let go of, it's like having your own twisted family, except it's a great new addition to the Chucky franchise, and as a big fan I feel this is clearly going to re-ignite the franchise for years to come.

Now don't worry it looks new cleaner but meaner than ever, with lots of nice touches that bring the Chucky doll up to date with today's toys, making him all the more menacing when he comes to life, with Pupils dilating, or his eyes going bloodshot, this is one upset crazed doll, who we also see walking and running .Chucky is back with a bang, and I can forgive the last film Seed Of Chucky, which was more comedy than horror, for here he is  creepier and more evil than ever. The one liners are still here but more devilish and fewer in number, and the gore is back up there with Curse, and so are the effects, but it is far more closer in both style and plot to the first Childs play. For die hard fans Dourif appears briefly in his serial killer Charles Lee Ray guise, some old photos and newspaper clippings feature Andy and scene's link direct to the first outing, all a big bonus in my book. Jenifer Tilly makes a brief cameo too which adds to the fun, and don't switch off till the very last title at the end, as well i'll say no more, this is a true return to form, a superb sequel, and a highly entertaining stand alone horror film at the same time. 7/10

< Message edited by evil bill -- 11/12/2013 7:02:06 PM >


_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15298
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 12/12/2013 8:01:50 AM   
CheshireMoon

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 14/8/2013
From: South Africa

quote:

ORIGINAL: UTB

Stoker was brilliant

And Pacific Rim was sheeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttteeeeee!



Stoker is by far one of my favorite films at the moment! It is so weird and I really didn't know anything about it, it is not my type of film at all but I loved it!

(in reply to UTB)
Post #: 15299
RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? - 12/12/2013 12:56:22 PM   
losthighway


Posts: 3248
Joined: 25/1/2006
From: Manchesterford

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler


quote:

ORIGINAL: losthighway

Saw two films in the past few days...

SAVING MR BANKS: A nice film that won't trouble your grandmother on a Sunday afternoon. It wasn't my choice to watch but my mates. Not as terrible as I was expecting but certainly a good 20-25mins too long and definitely feels like the kind of film which will be nominated for many awards but probably win very few! Overall: 3/5



I really loved it. Sweet, charming and heart-warming. Why did you expect it to be terrible?


The trailer just looked so unbelievably twee (admittedly it is Disney) but it didn't grab me at all. I was expecting it to bore me rigid. It didn't do that but I can't say it amazed me either.


_____________________________

The secret to becoming a star is knowing how to behave like one.

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 15300
Page:   <<   < prev  508 509 [510] 511 512   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films >> RE: WEIRD/STRANGE favorite movies? Page: <<   < prev  508 509 [510] 511 512   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750