RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 11, 2005 22:06:51 GMT
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 11, 2005 22:58:35 GMT
1. Scream 1996 2. Scream 2 1997
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Dec 12, 2005 4:33:34 GMT
Not that any of them are anything special, but the first Scream is way better then its followers Nightmare on Elm Street New Nightmare (0) Scream Scream 2 (0) Scream 3 (0) Red Eye
|
|
|
Post by Vercetti on Jan 19, 2006 20:16:37 GMT
Red Eye Scream A Nightmare on Elm Street Scream 2 Scream 3
|
|
|
Post by mikola on Apr 27, 2006 22:40:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Oct 29, 2008 18:01:40 GMT
1.Scream 5/10 2.Scream II 3/10
Shorts
1.Paris je t'aime(segment) 5/10
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 3, 2008 1:24:28 GMT
Features _1. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) ***** _2. Scream (1996) ***** _3. Scream 2 (1997) ***** _4. Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) ***** _5. Red Eye (2005) ***** _6. Vampire in Brooklyn (1995) ***** _7. The Hills Have Eyes (1977) ***** _8. The People Under the Stairs (1991) ***** _9. Scream 3 (2000) ***** 10. The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988) ***** 11. The Last House on the Left (1972) ***** 12. Swamp Thing (1982) *****
Anthologies 1. Paris, je t'aime (2006) ***** (segment: "Père-Lachaise")
Craven's status as some kind of 'master of horror' alongside the likes of Carpenter and Romero, who've hit higher highs and been more consistently interesting, is a puzzler. He generated controversy once (Last House), and hit a pop culture nerve twice (Nightmare, Scream). The rest of his career's been made up of mixed bags of mediocrity. Still, the opening scene of Scream is a masterclass. Why he can't ever make a film that maintains that high level of craftsmanship throughout, and why so many of his films display no hint of that kind of latent talent at all, is a bit of a mystery. I mean, if he's capable of it, why does he not... do it?
I've turned around on The Last House on the Left. A blunt and non-committal attempt at self-criticism through ironic cross-cutting between scenes of cruelty and slapstick is all it offers, and that's far from enough to validate it; its inclusion expresses little more than a guilty conscience, an unwillingness to dwell on the nastiness, and doesn't even have the virtue of being a central metaphor, a la Cannibal Holocaust.
|
|