|
|
Post by poelzig on Mar 5, 2017 6:00:23 GMT
Me. Me as well. Also it makes me think of The Ramones and it saddens me that they are gone.
|
|
efb
New Member
@efb
Posts: 13
Likes: 1
 
|
Post by efb on Mar 5, 2017 15:18:24 GMT
Very good, an 8.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Dontrocktheboat on Mar 7, 2017 1:26:11 GMT
Nice story. No freak out moments for me. I rate it an 8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Feb 1, 2019 11:59:30 GMT
FREAKS has a couple of terrifying moments (the shot of the deformed CLEOPATRA is very shocking), but the perforances are uneven and there's no clear message. It tries to tell the audience that people with physical deformities shouldn't be treated as monsters... and then shows them committing monstrous acts of revenge. No, being treated like crap for a long time doesn't justify it; the characters could've defended themselves in other ways. Am I wrong? If I am, it's not because I'm an ignorant on the subject; it's because the movie missed had the opportunity to be a complex debate about morals and ethics, but chose to focus on the entertaining horror. I guess that's why presidential debates are often refered to as "freak shows." 2/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Feb 1, 2019 17:15:41 GMT
The two little people who played Franz and his girlfriend were real life brother and sister. Now THAT'S creepy! Creepy that their parents had at least 2 dwarf children or that the story actually hinted they ended up as lovers? I guess that's why we never see them kissing though. Both played Munchkins in the Wizard of Oz (1939) Tecnically these "little people " in less PC terms were called midgets not dwarves and there were two more sisters... all four appeared with Ringling Brothers Circus in the Sideshow and billed themselves as The Doll Family   |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Feb 1, 2019 18:15:51 GMT
FREAKS has a couple of terrifying moments (the shot of the deformed CLEOPATRA is very shocking), but the perforances are uneven and there's no clear message. It tries to tell the audience that people with physical deformities shouldn't be treated as monsters... and then shows them committing monstrous acts of revenge. No, being treated like crap for a long time doesn't justify it; the characters could've defended themselves in other ways. Am I wrong? One of us, one of us. I have never seen it, but I knew the entire story since CLASSICS OF THE HORROR FILM spoiled the whole thing.
I had a similar reaction to SVENGALI--he is an outsider, presented as an unsympathetic character, yet at the end he seems to get God to grant him his dying wish, that the girl he has kept in a trance will spurn her true love for him. In the novel she dies too but only after breaking free of his spell. The movie has a strange moral message.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 1, 2019 18:19:52 GMT
I’ve tried for years to warm up to Freaks and just can’t, for whatever reason; Browning’s fondness for his cast is clear (he started out as a circus performer himself), but I just think the film is badly made and, worse, as dull as dishwater until the exciting climax (one of the very few exciting climaxes in Browning’s oeuvre). The movie exists in scenes—“one of us” in all its bizarre, quasi-religious overtones, the climax, and Cleopatra’s transformation—but everything between them is remarkably poor. Hawks once said a good movie is three good scenes and no bad ones. Freaks has those three good scenes but even more bad ones and, for me, ultimately comes off as a curiosity more than good film.
Other than Freaks, though, I’m a fan of nearly all of Browning’s sound films, which are often contrasted to their detriment with his silents with Lon Cheney. Those silents, though, tend (like Freaks) to be few good scenes and many bad ones, whereas his talkies—Dracula, Mark of the Vampire, The Devil-Doll, even the underrated Miracles for Sale—tend to keep mood, style, and visual interest throughout. (Dracula is oft-criticized for being too talky, and it is, but Browning uncharacteristically gives us some directorial niceties and keeps up this weird, dreamlike mood even through the talk.)
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Feb 1, 2019 18:58:18 GMT
I wrote quite an essay just now an the 'puter balked and ate it
The gist was
Yes, it is not technically a great or even good movie BUT
it does preserve moving images of some of the Extraordinary people who populated the Sideshow when Circuses came to town. People I had seen only in books became real people play acting in a preposterous story. If only for that, it's a movie worth watching (imo).
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 1, 2019 19:22:31 GMT
I wrote quite an essay just now an the 'puter balked and ate it The gist was Yes, it is not technically a great or even good movie BUT it does preserve moving images of some of the Extraordinary people who populated the Sideshow when Circuses came to town. People I had seen only in books became real people play acting in a preposterous story. If only for that, it's a movie worth watching (imo). That element I like very much, and the picture ought to be seen if only for that; again, Browning’s compassion for them is evident in nearly every frame. But I just wish those extraordinary people were in a better movie. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Feb 1, 2019 19:33:09 GMT
Nalkarj me too ! Some of the extra-ordinary people from a earlier era are portrayed in the recent The Greatest Showman and again, they deserved a better movie ! Fascinating people and quite important in the TRUE story of Barnum (which the film is NOT) .. but therein lies another rant for another thread 
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Feb 1, 2019 21:47:27 GMT
I was somewhat disappointed as I thought would be 'freakier', but it was worth the watch.
'The Fly II' uses the same ending.
|
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Feb 1, 2019 22:21:38 GMT
|
|
