It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:30 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 240 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:49 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
...and I have no privacy.



-Someone's Watching Me! (1978): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole:

Image

Effective early television thriller from John Carpenter -- made just before he jumped into Halloween but aired about a month after it hit theaters -- stars Lauren Hutton as a young woman entering a career directing live television who ensconces herself in a swank new L.A. apartment...unaware that a sicko voyeur across the way is peering into her most intimate private moments. And he doesn't stop with just peeking, either...there are also the vaguely threating notes (not quite enough to have the police -- personified by Carpenter favorite Charles Cyphers -- actually do anything about it), the more-than-vaguely threatening phone calls at all times of the day and night, the disturbing "presents" like photos of dead bodies and an teeny bikini, and even the recording equipment she finds. Fed up with the constant harassment, Hutton, her new boyfriend (David Birney) and her new friend at the television studio (Carpenter's future spouse, Adrienne Barbeau) try to find out who's the creep behind it all. Yet another variation on Rear Window, Somebody's Watching Me! is more modest than Carpenter's big-screen work of the period, and yet certainly shows that his skill behind the camera was formidable even under the constraints of network television, with his trademark elegant camerawork and well-etched characterization. Hutton, with her Alfred E. Neuman teeth, is a strong heroine, and Barbeau makes for an ideal sidekick. One wishes for a little more closure on one character's ultimate fate, and it's odd to see a peak-era Carpenter flick he didn't do the music for (Salem's Lot composer Harry Sukman provides the urgent orchestral score), and yet Somebody's Watching Me! is still an obscure yet worthy entry in his filmography, given new life in Scream Factory's splendid new Blu-Ray.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:06 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
-Misery (1990): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :nohole:

Image

It's not often that a movie feels more contemporary almost three decades after it was released than it did at the time, but Misery (directed by Rob Reiner and adapted from the novel by Stephen King by screenwriter William Goldman) feels eerily prescient about the modern-day state of "toxic fandom". James Caan played Paul Sheldon, a gifted writer whose bread & butter over the last 15 or so years has been thanks to his literary heroine Misery Chastain, who has starred in a series of wildly popular bodice-ripper romance novels. Sheldon is sick of writing them, though, so he's offed her at the end of his latest opus, and as the film opens has finished a new, untitled book that he hopes will restore his standing as a "serious" novelist. But, driving home from the lodge where he put the last few chapters down on paper, he's caught in a blizzard, drives off the road, and is rescued from the wreck by Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates, in an Oscar-winning performance), his self-proclaimed "Number-One Fan", who sets him up in her remote Colorado home to heal from his terrible injuries (including a pair of shattered legs). At first, Annie's kooky, off-center colloquialisms ("Sorry for prattling away and making you feel all oogy…!") are sort of charming, but soon, it becomes evident that Annie is dangerously unstable, and it all comes out in an explosion of fury when she gets to the end of Paul's last novel to find that her beloved Misery is dead. She's not just disappointed, she's incensed, and she demands that Paul write a new book that brings Misery back from the dead, or else she's going to be very cross with him.


Both King's novel and Reiner's film pre-dated the era of celebrity stalking, and, in an era where Star Wars fans practically self-immolated after the "disappointment" of The Last Jedi, even going so far as to demand the movie be "struck from the record" so Disney could start over and remake it to fit their expectations and bullying the film's stars off of social media sites, it barely feels like exaggeration or satire. Bates is exceptional in the film, with Reiner and cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld framing her face in looming, wide-angle closeups that practically allow you to feel every spicule of saliva that flies out of her mouth during her frequent, alarming tantrums. She's alternately terrifying, pitiable and often darkly funny ("He didn't get out of the cock-a-doodie CARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"). And Caan, despite a far less showy role, is equally as good, selling Paul's sense of unease as Annie's psychological hang-ups become gradually evident as well as his determination to escape the tar pit become hopelessly mired in. Also great in a supporting capacity are Richard Farnsworth and Frances Sternhagen as a crotchety-yet-wily local sheriff and his feisty, amorous wife ("This is one deputy who's rather be at home between the sheets with the sheriff!"), who slowly begin to put the pieces together. Only the film's climax disappoints, a rote, violent confrontation replete with one of those "Seemingly dead killer lunging up for one final scare" boo-shocks. It's a well-staged and shot scene that does deliver some jolts, but, given the rich set-up, it deflates what came before just enough to keep the film from being an all-time classic. That said, it's still one of the better adaptations of a King novel.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
-X: The Man With The X-Ray Eyes (1963): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole:

Image

A doctor (Ray Milland) uses himself as a Guinea Pig in an experiment utilizing special eye drops that will allow him to see beyond the approximately 10% of the limits of human perception...only to find that what he glimpses out there, shimmering through a kaleidoscopic miasma of light, is more terrifying than can be tolerated by the human psyche. Nifty little exercise in the Mad Scientist genre (produced and directed by Roger Corman) boasts neat "Spectarama" visual effects when the camera takes Milland's viewpoint and a memorably shocking final image. Definitely one of Corman's better features.

-Body Parts (1991): :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole: :nohole:

Image

Grisly thriller about a police psychologist (Jeff Fahey) who loses his arm in a terrible roadside accident and has a donor limb grafted onto his shoulder...and who is soon tormented by frightening visions of murder. Investigating, he soon learns his new appendage belonged to a deceased death row inmate, and that two other men who have received transplants from what was left over are suffering similar side effects. We've seen the "transplanted body part possesses its new host" schtick before (hell, I saw it earlier this month in the Body Bags segment "Eye"), and it's given plodding treatment here by co-screenwriter and director Eric Red (who wrote 80's genre favorites like The Hitcher and Near Dark), who never gets a proper handle on the material, playing it too straight to be campy and too silly to be authentically gripping. Only a brief car chase -- with Fahey, in the passenger seat of a police cruiser, handcuffed to someone in the driver's seat of a car in the other lane -- offers any real innovation, and Loek Dikker's lush score (replete with what sounds like a keening Theremin) works hard to make it all feel more impactful than it is, but overall it's a bloody mess.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:06 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
-Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2011): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :half:

Image

Frequently riotous horror/comedy about a pair of backwoods “rednecks” (Alan Tudyk and Tyler Labine) who run afoul of a gaggle of popped-collar college-kid douchebags…but this isn’t Deliverance, and they’re totally innocent of the bad deeds the youngsters consistently think of them as the misinformation builds into a pile of bodies neither side truly intended. Despite the enthusiastic outbursts of gore (including the best use of a woodchipper since Fargo), Tucker & Dale shoots for comic timing, and it’s great fun seeing Tudyk and Labine play off of each other in their shared astonishment as they witness what they think is a “suicide pact” as the college kids inadvertently off themselves in hilariously gruesome ways. Terrific fun.

-Island Claws (1980): :hole1: :half: :nohole: :nohole: :nohole:

Image

Genetic modification of crabs results in one giant specimen “terrorizing” a small island community in this logy snoozer which plays like a 1955 drive-in cheapie that somehow got released a quarter-century too late. The King Crab doesn’t actually appear until the last ten minutes, leaving the rest of the film trying to build tension with swarms of regular-sized ones skittering around very…very…slowly. Some unintentional yuks to be had, sure, but not enough to stave off the sandman for very long.

-The Bride (1985): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole:

Image

Lavish, literate quasi-sequel to The Bride Of Frankenstein basically opens where that 1935 classic climaxed, with Baron Frankenstein (Sting…!) creating the titular Bride (a luminously beautiful Jennifer Beals, in her Flashdance prime) in order to appease his Monster (Clancy Brown), only to cast his creation out during a fierce lightning storm and subsequent fire in his castle laboratory. Thinking the Monster dead, Frankenstein gradually acclimates his Bride (he names “Eva”) to the scriptures and mores of polite society, as the Monster befriends a wandering midget (David Rappaport from Time Bandits) and works his way through a brief stint in the circus as he plans to make enough scratch to get back to his lady love. Director Franc Roddam has made an extremely handsome period production, here (with excellent photography by Brain De Palma favorite Stephen H. Burum and a superb symphonic score by Maurice Jarre), and the film works well as a somewhat slow-paced period romance, but the pulp horror elements get suffocated by all of the Merchant/Ivory finery on display, and Sting’s portrayal as the “mad” Dr. F is wholly ineffective, draining the classic story of its masochistic energy. It’s a good film that’s never less than watchable, but it could, and should, have been more, and those expecting the more familiar trappings of the Universal or Hammer takes on Mary Shelley’s text will likely be left wanting.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:47 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
De Mented. De Ranged. De Ceptive. De Palma.

-Carrie (1976): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1:

-The Fury (1978): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :nohole:

Image

Image

Director Brian De Palma’s back-to-back 70’s takes on psychic teens. In Carrie, his feverish adaptation of Stephen King’s first published novel (adapted by Salem’s Lot and It screenwriter Lawrence D. Cohen), Sissy Spacek delivers a sensitive, Oscar-nominated turn as Carrie White, a poor, recessive, endlessly picked-upon high school student who gradually discovers she has the nascent yet powerful gift of telekinesis (the ability to move objects with the power of her mind), which her fervently religious kook of a mother (Piper Laurie, earning her own Oscar nom) takes as a sign that Satan himself is working his evil magic through her daughter. It all comes to a head at the senior prom, wherein King and De Palma craft an ingeniously twisted and dark variation on the Cinderella trope with a ghoulish prank enacted upon Carrie by the meanest of the film’s Mean Girls (a vividly nasty Nancy Allen) and her boorish lunk of a boyfriend (John Travolta in his first major film role) that sets off a lyrical cataclysm. One of the rare horror films that can make you weep even as your blood is frozen in fear, Carrie is a magnificent piece of cinema, one of De Palma’s very best and still arguably the best adaptation of King’s work (one laments that the two never worked together again. De Palma would have made a version of The Shining that would have been every bit as technically brilliant as Stanley Kubrick’s version while still retaining the novel’s aching human core that Kubrick was too icy and cerebral to give a damn about).

As for The Fury, it’s both messier and more ambitious than Carrie, the work of a filmmaker given his first big-studio assignment (for 20th Century Fox) and making a film that has a Kid-In-A-Candy-Store exuberance that – for the most part -- manages to paper over most of the narrative cracks with sheer auteurist verve. Lovely Amy Irving (who played Carrie’s “Good Girl”, Sue Snell) is here portrayed Gillian Bellaver, a teenage girl with a psychic gift of her own (which combines telepathy with the regrettable side effects of making those close to her bleed…sometimes a LOT). She’s gradually drawn into a chess match between a pair of estranged government agents (“We don’t spend a dime on public relations”), sleekly charismatic nogoodnik Childress (John Cassavetes) and Peter Sandza (Kirk Douglas), who has his son Robin (Andrew Stevens) stolen away due to his psychic abilities. Peter needs Gillian’s gift to locate his son, while Childress wants to harness her abilities for nefarious purposes as he has with Robin (shades of “Eleven” in Stranger Things). Set to a sensational John Williams score and boasting excellent photography by the late Richard H. Kline (Body Heat), The Fury – adapted by John Farris from his novel – is a film that’s all over the map tone-wise, with odd comic digressions butted up against De Palma’s usual grand guignol excesses, but the sheer momentum of the storytelling keeps you constantly engaged, building from one Rube Goldberg setpiece to another, each one a marvel of logistical engineering. And it all climaxes with one of the most memorable kiss-off scenes in horror history. Not a great film, but there’s so much great STUFF in it I’m willing to forgive the bouts of expository clumsiness in-between the Good Parts. Look fast for early appearances by Daryl Hannah and Dennis Franz.

-Jennifer (1978): :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole:

Image

Stop me if you’ve heard this one…a teenage girl (Lisa Pelikan…”’ey, Manny, look at the Pelikan! Fly, Pelikan, fly…!”) with an overbearing religious nut of a parent (Jeff Corey) is tormented by her snooty classmates at a luxe private school (where she has a well-earned scholarship the other girls resent), and eventually gets even via a psychic/paranormal ability (in this case, the ability to communicate with and control snakes). A shockingly bald-faced ripoff of Carrie, only shorn of even a hint of the touching humanity or dread-soaked atmosphere of Brian De Palma’s classic. It’s far from inept – it’s at least nicely-shot – but it takes forever to get anywhere, and when the punchline arrives, it’s a wan reward for the previous 80 minutes’ worth of tedium, with poor special effects and a lame denouement. Not terrible, but not very good.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:21 am 
Offline
Black Hole
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:18 pm
Posts: 8477
Vampire's Kiss

Quirky? Oddball? Weird? Insane? Wild? Bizarre?

Yep, pretty much all of those.

Cage plays an emotionally distant dude (undergoing regular therapy) that is sexually aroused when a bat flies into his life during an inconsequential sexual conquest. From there, we take off along for the ride where this low-rent Wall Street wannabe wolf executive starts losing his mind (he has trouble finding $50 in his wallet for a cab ride and his option for dental accessories is key to knowing this guy has no real money - but he has the look of money).

American Psycho has nothing on this guy's stumble from pathetic to psychopathic.

Probably one of Cage's best roles, IMHO.

We're left unsure in many scenes whether we should be laughing or being totally creeped out.

In one of the last scenes where Cage decides that he no longer needs his therapist and that all he needs is love, the tragedy of this guy is in full bloom, but we've come too far to turn away as he pleads his case to a street corner wall that he has finally realized that he is better now. All better now.

The scene is funny, sad, weird, and ultimately mimics the insanity of Cage.

Ultimately this is insanity.

8-)

_________________
Pender will beat off to anything....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:09 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
-Twice-Told Tales (1963): :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole: :nohole:

Image

Tepid triptych of terror tales -- adapted from the stories of Nathaniel Hawthorne -- all feature Vincent Price (who also narrates in his trademark dulcet tones). In “Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment”, Price portrays an elderly doctor with an even-more-decrepit friend (Sebastian Cabot) who both discover a literal fountain of youth in the crypt of Cabot’s wife (Mari Blanchard), whose corpse has been miraculously preserved by the water dripping upon her coffin for the last 38 years. In “Rappaccini’s Daughter”, Price portrays a man so determined to keep his daughter (Joyce Taylor) away from the evils of young, courting suitors that he mixes her blood with the blooms of a virulently poisonous plant growing in his walled-off garden, where he keeps both well-tended. In “House Of The Seven Gables”, Price plays a man returning to his childhood home after a 17-year absence tempted by a treasure rumored to be hidden somewhere on the grounds, only to fall under the sway of a curse that has plagued the male members of his family for over 150 years. A fairly routine anthology feature that fails to match the classy chills of the Roger Corman/Edgar Allan Poe adaptations of the period featuring Price, with logy pacing (the three stories take a combined two hours to fully play out) and obvious payoffs.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:35 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
-All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006) :hole1: :half: :nohole: :nohole: :nohole:

Image

Torpid suspenser about a much-desired high school girl (Amber Heard) who inadvertently instigates a tragedy at a pool party from a drunken dude trying to impress her. Nine months later, she and a group of friends attend a party at a remote cattle ranch, and suddenly they start getting picked off one-by-one by a mysterious killer. Mandy Lane is nicely-shot, but shuffles between boredom and ugly excess, and ends with a who-cares? quasi-twist that doesn’t seem like much of a motive to hang a murder spree on. Bleh.

-Hideaway (1995): :hole1: :half: :nohole: :nohole: :nohole:

Image

Hilariously chintzy thriller about a husband and father (Jeff Goldblum) who takes a long dunk in a freezing river after a car accident and is revived by a doctor (Alfred Molina) after two+ hours who utilizes a new technique to bring him back from the brink of death…but has Goldblum’s mind been tethered to that of a serial killer (Jeremy Sisto) while he was hovering outside of the Pearly Gates? Directed by Brett Leonard (The Lawnmower Man) and adapted from a novel by Dean Koontz (aka the author who must have been thrilled to have his tomes put on the shelf alphabetically next to Stephen King in the horror section of bookstores in the 80’s and 90’s), Hideaway is a good example of the typically low-grade serial-killer schlock that bred like rabbits in the early-to-mid 90’s thanks to the commercial and critical success of genuinely artful shockers like Silence Of The Lambs and Se7en, but what really yokes it to the period it was birthed in are the now-laughable CGI effects used to depict the metaphysical “Other Side” Goldblum and Sisto often see during their shared visions. It’s all screamingly mid-90’s at this point, never more obviously when we see that Goldblum’s sure-to-be-imperiled teen daughter is played by a pre-Clueless Alicia Silverstone (at one point he tries to win her favor by surprising her with tickets to see Pearl Jam). Dumb, dankly-shot in generic Ontario locations and wearyingly cliché-ridden, only noteworthy for the presence of Silverstone on the cusp of her oh-so-brief stardom and for those tacky, Spawn-level CG effects.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 7:31 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 5539
Location: Likely underwater
Image

The Cabin in the Woods

:hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1:

Karen and Lil insisted on watching this one. It's one of their favorites and one of mine too. I know some people don't like it because of the writing, but I love it. Especially that wonderful, wonderful unicorn.

Image

Battle Royale

:hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1:

The girls had never seen it. Both declared they hated it. I know full well though that it's in their heads now and they'll be asking to see it again in a couple of years.


Image

The Black Scorpion

:hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole:

A very fun giant bug movie that features more than one scorpion despite the title. Great stop motion animation here and a giant practical scorpion face that drools into the camera repeatedly. Mara Corday (Tarantula) stars and she's just as great looking on a horse battling scorpions as she is in a lab coat battling giant spiders.

Image

The Thing From Another World (1951)

:hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1:

The one that started it all. While Carpenter's version actually sticks closer to the source material (a short story called Who Goes There?), this one is still tense and fun. Great acting and direction here and if you haven't seen it, you should watch it before you watch that damn prequel.

_________________
"Watch my stuff." - Monterey Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:43 am 
Online
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:20 pm
Posts: 8040
caryc wrote:
Battle Royale

:hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1:

The girls had never seen it. Both declared they hated it. I know full well though that it's in their heads now and they'll be asking to see it again in a couple of years.


I recently watched an insane film called Tag (from 2015, not the recent US movie with the same name). It loses some steam toward the end (mainly because nothing tops the bus scene), but it's definitely worth checking out if you liked BR.

_________________
In space, nobody can hear you ride breakfast goat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:36 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 5539
Location: Likely underwater
Chris Knight wrote:
caryc wrote:
Battle Royale

:hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1:

The girls had never seen it. Both declared they hated it. I know full well though that it's in their heads now and they'll be asking to see it again in a couple of years.


I recently watched an insane film called Tag (from 2015, not the recent US movie with the same name). It loses some steam toward the end (mainly because nothing tops the bus scene), but it's definitely worth checking out if you liked BR.


I have that in my Netflix queue. It looked interesting and I thought it may be similar. Have you ever seen BR II? I've always heard it's awful so I've never bothered with it.

_________________
"Watch my stuff." - Monterey Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline
Black Hole
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:18 pm
Posts: 8477
Cabin In The Woods is definitely a good movie. Not sure it is 5 holes, but it definitely is way better than a lot of the hate it got when it was released.

_________________
Pender will beat off to anything....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:01 pm 
Online
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:20 pm
Posts: 8040
caryc wrote:
I have that in my Netflix queue. It looked interesting and I thought it may be similar. Have you ever seen BR II? I've always heard it's awful so I've never bothered with it.

It's nothing special. Survivors from part 1 form a terrorist group, and then new school kids are sent in to kill them (using the exact same gimmick as part 1). The director died right as production began, so it's missing everything you would have liked about the original. Still, if you like the concept, it's worth watching once (like Saw 2, 3, 5, 6). The film is generally hated in the US for reasons that will be obvious when you watch the very beginning and end (and put in context when the film was released).

_________________
In space, nobody can hear you ride breakfast goat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
Fangs for the memories…

-Dracula (Spanish version, 1931): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :nohole:

-Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole:

Image

Image

Had a double-Drac sandwich today, starting off with a fascinating oddity…a full-length Spanish language version of Dracula, made at the same time as the famous 1931 version with Bela Lugosi, shot late at night on the same Universal sets and utilizing many of the same props. And yet it’s not just a Xerox of the version fans have been familiar with for decades. Nearly a half-hour longer, and with much more elaborate, flowing camerawork and more subtle, spectral details (like when the Count walks through a floor-to-ceiling cobweb without disturbing it), it’s quite the interesting companion piece to the Universal film. Carlos Villarias cuts an impressive figure as Drac, with his vulpine smile and popping eyes, even if he can’t hope to match the magnetic charisma of Lugosi’s oft-imitated performance. Contained as an extra feature on the Blu-Ray of the Universal film, it’s certainly worth a view.

Francis Ford Coppola’s extravagant 1992 take on the material, despite featuring the author’s name in the title, was dubbed “MTV’s Dracula” by more than one critic at the time, and it’s a lavish yet frustrating spectacle, about one-third exceptional, one-third hyperbolic, and one-third absolutely insane. One the plus side are the performances by Gary Oldman as Drac (in a variety of guises – from wizened, Yoda-esque crone to dapper ladykiller to frightful bats and wolves – all courtesy of Oscar-winning makeup wizard Greg Cannom) and a ravishing Winona Ryder as Mina, the reincarnation of his centuries-lost love (yep, it’s that old vampire chestnut). Their scenes of courtship, set to the most passionate passages of Wojciech Kilar’s superb score, are easily the best-acted and most compelling sequences in the film. On the other hand, the rest of the performances range from clichéd ciphers (Cary Elwes as – what else? – a stuffy British prig, The Rocketeer’s Bill Campbell as an American cowboy stereotype so broad you expect him to start taking potshots at Bugs Bunny) to riotously miscast (a wincingly stilted Keanu Reeves as Mina’s intended beau, Jonathan Harker) to just plain riotous (Anthony Hopkins as Abraham Van Helsing, gnawing the scenery with hammy hilarity). And Coppola, taking a page from the overheated stylings of early-90’s Oliver Stone, jams the movie with admittedly-impressive visual hyperbole that feels like a two-hour compilation reel for a television miniseries. There’s always something interesting to look at, and the cast is clad in stunning, Oscar-winning costumes by Eiko Ishioka, and yet the film lurches from one extreme of emotion to another that it shuffles between being exhilarating and exhausting. It’s a shame, because the Oldman/Ryder core of the film is so moving and well-acted you wish the movie would breathe a little to allow it to flower like it should. It’s hard to think of another movie with so much great stuff in it that you can’t quite bring yourself to love.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:28 pm 
Offline
Black Hole
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:18 pm
Posts: 8477
Coppola's take on Dracula was about as true to the source as any could be given that it was the lavish over-the-top spectacle is correct for when it was penned and the manor in which it was originally written.

I think Francis' take is an underrated and unappreciated work of genius.

_________________
Pender will beat off to anything....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:38 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
There are PARTS of Bram Stoker's Dracula I love (basically all of the Oldman/Ryder scenes), but it's just so uneven. And Hopkins' performance makes me laugh unintentionally every single time. Even some of the good scenes are ruined by weird moments or bad acting, like the kinky "Dracula's Brides" scene (w/a young, topless Monica Belucci) that ends with the genuinely unsettling moment where Drac gives a "gift" of a helpless, crying baby to the women (but...where did he get it...?)...but is sabotaged by a ridiculous, contorted closeup of Keanu Reeves reacting in "horror".

This is the kind of movie I pull out every few years hoping it'll finally "click" and I can ignore all of the silly and/or stilted moments, but, like Blade Runner or The Shining, it's ultimately just a "very good" movie with A+ production values.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 6:31 am 
Offline
Black Hole
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:18 pm
Posts: 8477
Have you read the book?

_________________
Pender will beat off to anything....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:46 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
It's one of those things I've always meant to read, but I know it'd probably take me a month to pick through it.

-ParaNorman (2012): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1:

Image

Gorgeous stop-motion feature from Laika has become one of my go-to Halloween-time films when it comes to "family-friendly" spooky fare. It evokes that kind of "80's PG" Amblin vibe when "scary" fare for kids wasn't afraid to go right up to the doorbell and ring it. An account of a lonely boy named Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee) who has the unasked-for "gift" of communing with spirits that have yet to move onto whatever comes next, and how he gets passed down the task of keeping a witch's curse at bay from his eccentric uncle (John Goodman) that threatens to tear apart his small hometown of Blithe Hollow, ParaNorman is stunningly animated, every madly-detailed frame bursting with compellingly askew character and set designs. And yet, for all of the pleasurable laughs and genre shout-outs (including visual homages to Halloween and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and a hilarious opening parody of badly-made 80's zombie movies), it's in the film's final half-hour that it blossoms into a startlingly emotional climax, one that facilitates between rage and forgiveness with an uncanny storytelling grace. It's Pixar levels of tear-jerking, and alone turns this into an all-time classic. Fantastic.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:44 am 
Offline
Black Hole
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:18 pm
Posts: 8477
Dracula is not a great read. I read it on a whim way back in my high school years for a school report subject (I chose nearly everything I read or wrote about throughout my school years). It was rather boring and convoluted from what I recall.

But it does explain some things in the Bram Stoker's Dracula movie.

For example, Dracula would visit horror upon his nearby town by collecting hapless babies to feed his wives at night. Visions like this were creepy, to be sure, but the drab, dreary relating of Dracula's business dealings were, well, drab and dreary.

I may reread it at some point, but it definitely is worth reading at least one time.

_________________
Pender will beat off to anything....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 5539
Location: Likely underwater
Pender wrote:
Dracula is not a great read. I read it on a whim way back in my high school years for a school report subject (I chose nearly everything I read or wrote about throughout my school years). It was rather boring and convoluted from what I recall.

But it does explain some things in the Bram Stoker's Dracula movie.

For example, Dracula would visit horror upon his nearby town by collecting hapless babies to feed his wives at night. Visions like this were creepy, to be sure, but the drab, dreary relating of Dracula's business dealings were, well, drab and dreary.

I may reread it at some point, but it definitely is worth reading at least one time.


I've read it a few times. The first read was more of a chore than expected but I've liked it better when I've returned to it. I think it's interesting that Monty thought the Oldman/Ryder scenes resonated more because those are almost all the invention of Coppola and his screenwriter. The romantic angle was inserted into the film to elevate it above a regular "horror movie". There's nothing romantic about Dracula's obsession with Mina in the book. He's trying to make her his just to fuck with his enemies.

Otherwise, Coppola's take does hold pretty well to the source material. It's definitely closer than any other adaptation. The thing that I find the most troubling about it is Reeves. I like him in a lot of roles but he was definitely not right for that one.

_________________
"Watch my stuff." - Monterey Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:26 am 
Online
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:20 pm
Posts: 8040
I think Vampire Hunter D is the better adaptation. That or Dracula 2000, only because it has 2000 in the title, and I remember enjoying it far more than I expected to.

_________________
In space, nobody can hear you ride breakfast goat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:32 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:06 am
Posts: 5715
Location: Portland, Oregooooooooo
Pender wrote:
lavish over-the-top spectacle

Image
Image

_________________
...fuck you, JFelix, fuck you into the ground. - Ericubus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:29 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
caryc wrote:
I think it's interesting that Monty thought the Oldman/Ryder scenes resonated more because those are almost all the invention of Coppola and his screenwriter. The romantic angle was inserted into the film to elevate it above a regular "horror movie". There's nothing romantic about Dracula's obsession with Mina in the book. He's trying to make her his just to fuck with his enemies.


I have no problem with that...as long as changes work for the particular film adaptation, I don't care if they change this or that from the book, and the Oldman/Ryder romantic scenes are the best element of the Coppola film, which is otherwise all over the map.

And casting Keanu Reeves in a period movie is just head-slappingly illogical. Around the same time he popped up in the Shakespeare movie Much Ado About Nothing, and he was every bit as stilted and laughable there. Some actors should never appear in movies set before, say, 1950 (Tom Cruise is another one. Fine actor, but put him in period attire and he seems like he's a nervous high-schooler in a play, wearing an ill-fitting costume).

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:53 am 
Offline
Black Hole
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:18 pm
Posts: 8477
JFelix wrote:
Pender wrote:
lavish over-the-top spectacle

Image

"lavish over-the-top spectacle" = Baroque, Rococo, Romanticism, and, of course, Gothic.

Attachment:
lavish.jpg
lavish.jpg [ 65.24 KiB | Viewed 2717 times ]


All of which were very much intentional to the original book.

I think Coppola nailed that aspect (and the Academy Awards for much of the look of the movie kind of justifies this opinion) and no other Dracula film has come close to this for me.

I am of the mind that Reeves' choice is perfect, as well, since he is the befuddled, clueless, dupe that Jonathan needs to be for the story. Is it distracting? Yes.

But he has to be the youthful guy that is trying too hard (everyone knows he is reaching above his station and that is why he takes such a ludicrous job of going to Transylvania just to get up the next rung of the corporate ladder) and he has to be the guy no one really wants Mina to settle upon.

Reeves' portrayal of Jonathan's tenuous bravado stems more from a sense of being "inconvenienced" in his rise to being a stodgy fool than actual sense of love. His performance is the prefect juxtaposition of Oldman's Dracula in all his worldly cool and heathen passion.

I think most people dismiss it as bad acting (the easy target), but it is actually superb directing by Coppola.

Again, this movie is far better than most people realize.

_________________
Pender will beat off to anything....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:08 pm 
Offline
Black Hole
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:18 pm
Posts: 8477
Chris Knight wrote:
I think Vampire Hunter D is the better adaptation. That or Dracula 2000, only because it has 2000 in the title, and I remember enjoying it far more than I expected to.

Wrong.

:half: :nohole: :nohole: :nohole: :nohole:

:|

_________________
Pender will beat off to anything....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:54 pm 
Offline
HMFIC
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:30 pm
Posts: 4563
Location: Detroit
Coppola's Dracula can't decide who we're supposed to root for. In a bunch of scenes, Dracula is played as the good guy. In others, he's pure evil. It's borderline incoherent. Often very beautiful (though I felt like it looked cheaper than I remembered when I rewatched it a year or two ago), but not much of a consistent narrative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:38 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 5539
Location: Likely underwater
Monterey Jack wrote:
caryc wrote:
I think it's interesting that Monty thought the Oldman/Ryder scenes resonated more because those are almost all the invention of Coppola and his screenwriter. The romantic angle was inserted into the film to elevate it above a regular "horror movie". There's nothing romantic about Dracula's obsession with Mina in the book. He's trying to make her his just to fuck with his enemies.


I have no problem with that...as long as changes work for the particular film adaptation, I don't care if they change this or that from the book, and the Oldman/Ryder romantic scenes are the best element of the Coppola film, which is otherwise all over the map.



For the record, this wasn't a dig on you Monty. I was just pointing out that the additional material did its job. It obviously had a more modern sensibility where the rest left some people wanting more. Stoker's book is actually all over the map so the rest of the film captures that.

_________________
"Watch my stuff." - Monterey Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2018 7:14 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
-Dr. Giggles (1992): :hole1: :half: :nohole: :nohole: :nohole:

Image

Lousy horror flick about an escaped, constantly-sniggering mental patient (L.A. Law’s Larry Drake) who returns to his old hometown and takes up his late father’s former practice, in order to torment the local populace (including a pre-Charmed Holly Marie Combs as a teen with a defective heart). Had the movie played up Drake as an actual doctor, with real patients, and allowed the horror to build gradually as the audience realized he was not quite right, the film might have played off of the queasy fear pretty much everyone has about going to the doctor’s office, but this is basically your run-of-the-mill slasher, with Drake dressing up in Dad’s decades-old lab coat and killing random people while delivering awful medical puns. The gore in standard, the pacing logy and overall the film is a tremendous chore to sit through even at only 90 minutes.

-The Cabin In The Woods (2012): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :nohole:

Image

The Whitman’s Sampler of horror films, this larky hoot of a thriller is essentially a riff on Dark City, with a group of generic college-aged “types” (the Bimbo, the Jock, the Virgin, etc.) acting out a standard-issue hey-let’s-go-out-to-my-relative’s-remote-cabin scenario…while a group of jaded workplace drones (represented mostly by a droll Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford) monitor and subtly “direct” their actions from an antiseptic subterranean location far beneath the titular Cabin to…well, just watch the movie. Written by the master of postmodern snark, Joss Whedon, along with director Drew Goddard (who went on to write the script for Ridley Scott’s The Martian and write and direct the new theatrical release Bad Times At The El Royale), The Cabin In The Woods picks apart horror clichés with a loving eye for the conventions of the genre, but it’s the insane final twenty minutes or so that really makes the film, a visually-overpowering wave of ideas and archetypes that will delight hardcore fans of Scary Movies.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:01 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:57 pm
Posts: 5539
Location: Likely underwater
Monterey Jack wrote:
The Cabin In The Woods picks apart horror clichés with a loving eye for the conventions of the genre, but it’s the insane final twenty minutes or so that really makes the film, a visually-overpowering wave of ideas and archetypes that will delight hardcore fans of Scary Movies.


I know that not everyone gives this movie five holes like I do, but this sentence about the last twenty minutes sums up why I love it as much as I do.

Spoiler: show
I also completely love the downer ending. "Maybe it's time someone else has a try." There are other horror movies that tease the end of the world may be at hand, but this one goes the full length of showing the giant arm burst up out of the Earth. Shit's going to get real. So, the extra star I give it is more due to the ballsy plotting of that last 20 minutes than everything that's come before.

_________________
"Watch my stuff." - Monterey Jack


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:12 am 
Offline
Black Hole
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:18 pm
Posts: 8477
caryc wrote:
Monterey Jack wrote:
The Cabin In The Woods picks apart horror clichés with a loving eye for the conventions of the genre, but it’s the insane final twenty minutes or so that really makes the film, a visually-overpowering wave of ideas and archetypes that will delight hardcore fans of Scary Movies.


I know that not everyone gives this movie five holes like I do, but this sentence about the last twenty minutes sums up why I love it as much as I do.

Spoiler: show
I also completely love the downer ending. "Maybe it's time someone else has a try." There are other horror movies that tease the end of the world may be at hand, but this one goes the full length of showing the giant arm burst up out of the Earth. Shit's going to get real. So, the extra star I give it is more due to the ballsy plotting of that last 20 minutes than everything that's come before.

I too, loved the spoiler.

It really resonated with me and took it to another level that many movies of this genre refuse to do (probably because they have dollars in their eyes).

Then again, I enjoyed Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

:thumbs:

_________________
Pender will beat off to anything....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
A Black Mass…

-The Omen (1976): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :nohole:

-Damien: Omen II (1978): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole:

-The Final Conflict: Omen III (1981): :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole: :nohole:

Image

Image

Image

The rare example of a horror trilogy with three distinct chapters that tell a complete and finite story, the Omen films, while decreasing in quality with each installment, nevertheless remain an intriguing experiment. The 1976 original (the first major directorial outing for Richard Donner, who’d use the film’s considerable commercial success to land the plum assignment of directing Superman: The Movie two years later) is the best of the bunch, a taut, well-acted thriller about a well-to-do middle-aged couple, Robert and Kathy Thorn (Gregory Peck and Lee Remick) who lose their baby in childbirth. Lacking the courage to break the terrible news to his wife, Robert is compelled by a priest to adopt a young baby in the same Rome hospital who lost his mother in childbirth the same night (“She need never know”). They happily raise the child, whom they name Damien (the chipmunk-cheeked Harvey Stephens) to the age of five...and then people around them start to die, in a series of bizarre “accidents”. Is there some malign import around this rash of deaths? And why is Damien suddenly receiving a load of attention, both malign and protective/possessive, from a variety of sources? Why, yes, he IS the literal Son Of Satan, and Robert must come to grips with making an unforgivable decision for the greater good of mankind. The Omen is a slick, engrossing, well-paced thriller with numerous memorable sequences (including a famous cinematic beheading) and fine performances from Peck – lending his old-Hollywood gravitas to fairly pulpy material – and Remick. That said, it’s not quite a classic, falling short of other paranoid religious-flavored horror films of the period like Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist. Still, it’s frightfully good, and Jerry Goldsmith’s chilling score (which, incredibly, earned him the only Oscar of his long and brilliant career) is definitely the icing on the cake.

In Damien: Omen II, we re-visit Damien seven years later, where he’s now a strapping lad of twelve (and played by Jonathan Scott-Taylor) and living with Robert Thorn’s brother, Richard (William Holden, adding a similar dash of class to the genre proceedings as Peck did) his second wife (Lee Grant) and his cousin, Mark (Lucas Donat). Entering military school, Damien’s life seems pretty set…until the school’s Sergeant (Lance Henriksen, in an early film role) sets him on the road to discovering his Satanic lineage. Directed with faceless efficiency by Don Taylor (replacing Mike Hodges a few days into the production, although Hodges retains a co-screenplay credit with Stanley Mann) and set to another terrific Goldsmith score (the ghastly, guttural choral croak that accompanies the jet-black crow that serves as Damien’s familiar is a particular standout), Omen II is a perfectly serviceable follow-up that plays like an early example of Hollywood’s penchant for constructing franchise sequels around “setpieces” more than a well-constructed narrative (there’s a subplot with subordinate Robert Foxworth buying up land for Holden’s Thorn Industries company – and possibly murdering landowners who refuse to sell -- that goes nowhere), but on that level, the film constructs and executes a number of grisly death scenarios with enthusiastic panache (the death of Thorn Industries bigwig Lew Ayres beneath the surface of an icy lake is a standout). Patchy, but fun.

Finally, The Final Conflict leaps ahead two decades to Damien an age 32 (now portrayed by a devilishly handsome and charismatic Sam Neill), as he consolidates his clout as the head honcho of Thorn Industries into a bid for the position of Ambassador to Great Britain, utilizing some of his trademark, gruesome “accidents” to pave the way…but his finds his ascension to power threated by the literal Second Coming of Christ, and he sets off a ghoulish plot to murder every child born on the specific date of the Nazarene’s prophesized return. Neill is terrific in the lead role, given many juicy monologues to deliver, and Goldsmith delivers his finest score for the trilogy, a virtual dark opera that stands with some of his all-time best work (with a particularly thrilling cue for a fox hunt midway through the picture), and yet it’s fitting that this particular Conflict was the Final one, because the series is coasting on fumes by this point. It’s not especially terrible, but there’s nothing you haven’t seen before in this particular series, and the snoozy pacing doesn’t help. Were it not for series MVP Goldsmith’s phenomenal music lifting up the proceedings, I would probably have less charitable things to say about the film as a whole. Not a bad end to a series of films, but it should have delivered more of a punch as a concluding chapter.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:55 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:13 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: North Carolina
Over the last couple of days.

Image

Image

Image

_________________
God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. - Romans 5:8

Letterboxed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:01 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:29 pm
Posts: 6118
Location: Walpole, MA
Can a heart break once it's stopped beating...?

-Corpse Bride (2005): :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1:

Image

One of Tim Burton's most charming features, this gorgeous stop-motion love triangle is a film I've liked more and more with subsequent viewings, and I now consider it one of the director's finest achievements. Johnny Depp voices Victor Van Dort, a tremulously polite young gentleman left befuddled by his betrothal to Victoria Everglott (Emily Watson) in a bid to unite their two families and save both from the poorhouse. Fleeing the wedding rehearsal in fright, he practices his vows in a desolate part of the forest surrounding his small village...and finds, to his chagrin, his proposal accepted by Emily (Helena Bonham Carter), a surprisingly comely cadaver who whisks him away to the Land Of The Dead, a hellzapoppin' jamboree far more lively than the staid, colorless Land Of The Living above. Victor's romantic dilemma -- caught between a pair of lovely women he doesn't want to disappoint -- forms the aching core of this melancholy fairy tale, which bursts with the director's usual mix of light and dark and is brilliantly animated by the emerging Laika studio (who would have their first big solo breakout a few years later with Coraline) and boasts a lovely/lively song score by Danny Elfman (who voices "Ball & Socket Lounge" singer Bonejangles). Along with Edward Scissorhands, this is the Burton feature that I find the most moving of his works, and the inherent sweetness mixes perfectly with the film's lightly ghoulish laughs (Emily has a nattering maggot -- voiced in a Peter Lorre rasp by Enn Reitel -- that lives inside of her eye socket). Perfect Halloween fare for children of all ages.

_________________
< Fucking Loser


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:26 am 
Online
Pollution Baby
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:51 am
Posts: 6679
Location: Massachusetts
Dreamworks Spooky Stories
Image
Image

I had stayed up till around 5:00 am the night before, testing for a job interview, and got maybe 30 minutes of sleep, so dinner was an impromptu movie night while I tried to stay conscious. They are actually really good, except maybe the Ghost of Farquaad which was from a 4D ride and doesn't really match up with the story quality or the animation quality, but kinda fun none the less. The Scared Shrekless one is kind of an anthology type wrapped around them telling scary stories, and parts got my kid's running from the room or hiding their faces, so that was fun.

Overall: :hole1: :hole1: :hole1: :half: :nohole:

_________________
-These are the demands and sayings of Ericubus.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten. - George Lucas 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:40 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:13 pm
Posts: 3669
Location: North Carolina
Image

Image

Image

_________________
God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. - Romans 5:8

Letterboxed


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 240 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group