Last Seen 70s/80s Movie

[Disease]

Donkey Punch


It was pretty weak, a bit all over the place, it just didn't seem to have the impect it was ment to.

6/10

[roshiq]

Originally Posted by scouse mac

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning


Not awful but had the same problem as other films of this type, ie the sadistic torturing of people, in that no time is spent developing the characters so that you actually give a shit what happens to them. It looks good, the FX are top drawer and a quality turn by R Lee Ermey steals the show as the family patriarch.
Worth a look.

..one of my favorites:o

last seen:

White Noise (2005)

>>: C-

White Noise 2: The Light (2007)

>>: C

[Kane_Hodder]

Student Bodies.

[hacelikewhoa]

Ginger Snaps 2 Unleashed. Ahhhh I'd give it 6/10. I found it boring and I still don't understand how people turning into werewolves can supposedly heal and then Bridgett ended up killing her sister in the fist one with one single stab? And why didn't that cure stuff automatically cure her like it didn't the others? Why did she have to shoot it up so many times? And then where did the werewolf that was following her in the second movie come from? Idk. I like the idea of the movie I guess in the long run and I liked how they ended it. I sort of like werewolf movies over vampire movies but usually because it seems like a lot of vampire movies are ruined because they try to make love stories. Haven't watched Ginger Snaps back, is it worth it?

[hammerfan]

Originally Posted by phantomstranger

"Blacula" (1972)


Groovy, baby, groovy

You just brought back memories for me.....I saw this at the drive-in when it came out! :D

[hammerfan]

Originally Posted by _____V_____

And? How was it?

[psycho d]

The Signal (2006). i really liked this flick. Got a little confusing at times, but it came back around each time to enlighten me. The dark humor worked wonders, but did not detract from the bleak atmosphere. Ashe.
d

[TheGemini]

The Ferryman. Impressive story, cheap execution.

[alkytrio666]

Broken Blossoms (1918)

An ambitious little story from the man who had made so many big ones, but it lags due to its casting and the resulting acting. It is hard to take Griffith's message on the acceptance and tolerance of all people regardless of race seriously while his disasterous decision to have Caucasian American actor Richard Barthelmess lingers over the production; here is an actor who spends all his energy squinting his eyes as tight as he can and walking around stiff as a board, and because of this there is no depth to the performance at all. The performance, besides being racist, is dissapointingly dull and theatrical, a shame especially when the character was one who could have been beautifully fleshed out with a real Asian actor. Setting aside this element, though, there is no denying the geniousness of Griffith's storytelling. He is a master of his craft, a technician as well as an artist, and every shot is a unique piece of a poetic composition. While other so-called filmmakers were still tinkering around with the idea of the moving picture, this man had already mastered the idea of space and time and their representations on celluloid (as was evident by his two previous successes) and was now using that ability to create an auterist's rhythm; by harnessing the images of memory and simultaneous action Griffith carefully ensures that his film is truly a moving one, full of life and hypnotic vision.An ambitious little story from the man who had made so many big ones, but it lags due to its casting and the resulting acting. It is hard to take Griffith's message on the acceptance and tolerance of all people regardless of race seriously while his disasterous decision to have Caucasian American actor Richard Barthelmess lingers over the production; here is an actor who spends all his energy squinting his eyes as tight as he can and walking around stiff as a board, and because of this there is no depth to the performance at all. The performance, besides being racist, is dissapointingly dull and theatrical, a shame especially when the character was one who could have been beautifully fleshed out with a real asian actor. Setting aside this element, though, there is no denying the geniousness of Griffith's storytelling. He is a master of his craft, a technician as well as an artist, and every shot is a unique piece of a poetic composition. While other so-called filmmakers were still tinkering around with the idea of the moving picture, this man had already mastered the idea of space and time and their representations on celluloid (as was evident by his two previous successes) and was now using that ability to create an auterist's rhythm; by harnessing the images of memory and simultaneous action Griffith carefully ensures that his film is truly a moving one, full of life and hypnotic vision.

[_____V_____]

Originally Posted by hammerfan

And? How was it?

Fans of the first one might dig this. Just a straight actioner with some pretty neat and artistic camerawork. Hanks and the female lead both look out of sorts. The supporting cast is solid, especially Ewan MacGregor.

I havent read this book so I cannot say how it holds in comparison to the written work, but there's too much happening all the time, so I am thinking the makers took some liberties. The ending felt flat. Overall, watch it at home if you have nothing else to see/do on a boring Sunday afternoon.