willow bell

I just saw it was showing in a local art centre and remembered seeing it about 10 years after its release. It was in a friend's house, she really rated David Lynch. There were a few of us and I didn't like it and thought it was probably arty and pretentious. I think my friends did, so I might have pretended to be interested. All I remember is a funny whiring or humming noise in the background and someone saying there's a baby in the hospital, which of course was a mutant. Not helpful but I had to comment. Four stars for originality but best watched with some alcohol and in company.

That was quite an ending and with a twist; totally unexpected. Still it's a relief that it is over. Ollie was so plainly a young gay teenager who had a crush on Phil but was too young for any sort of affair with him. In Britain, a man of Phil's age even lying in bed with a naked drunken teenager would be an offence. In one recent series, going to a support group with a pupil constitued a rape. Still, even though I didn't doubt her word, Penny irritated me throughout, because of her rash behaviour and impatience that gave that hateful man the edge. She did herself no favours especially with her affair with the spineless neighbour, her best friend's hubby. And even more when she took Walter from school and played into the hands of her very annoying daughter; a product of Jungism. I did really feel for Penny at the funeral though. My favourite character was Ollie and I felt the last scene showed it would all come out. Very well acted by all though.

The palliative care of vampires, a laugh a minute, who is anyone trying to kid? Felt it was a cruel film dressed up as art. Still, I felt sorry for the brothers, hated the sister. Tales of abduction and procurement are never touching and the overlap with ''family'' loyalty, is sick but a sign of the times. If they were a ''real family'', why weren't they all vampires? Got it in the end, it was a metaphor.

I saw Duel in the cinema when it came out. I was 20 and thought it riveting as did just about everyone I knew who saw it. People really talked a lot about it and tried to analyse it. A lot thought it was a reflection on urbanity versus the working class. When I watched it with my daughter about 20 years later she though it mind blowing too and she was only about 12 at the time. I can't see why its rating on Rotten Tomatoes was so low, I guess its a sign of the times. The critics mostly thought it very entertaining but there was too much focus on Stephen Spielberg. In 1971, people in Britain had just started becoming obsessed with directors, a hobby that I only took up in the last 10 years, though I did know and appreciate loads of their films. I think Hitchcock was the first for my generation, but although I love his films, for me the obsession began with Tarantino. 100 per cent for this film.

A pretty pointless and banal story, but I guess prostitution is not a familiar subject to most people. It wasn't novel for me because I used to work with sex workers and I know it is a tragic life and a very dangerous one wherever it happens. The acting is supurb, especially, especially Riley's, so I hung on in there. I was telling Zola to get a proper job, which I reckon she did after all that.

A very entertaining film, I was rooting for her when she picked off those cowardly creeps one at a time. Let it be a warning to men who rape, use and abuse. She is lovely and a good actor but her choice of a man was poor, since he was married as well as a coward. I especially liked the trip that enabled her to survive even though it was unlikely she could have. I don't see why people are so upset by that when there are similar scenarios in all action films. I've seen it 3 times and I still worry about her at the end as she'd be sent to gaol. Still it is just a film. the scenery and filming were great too.

Just seeing the last episode and really enjoying it, if just to shout at Laura for being taken in by Emily. That's what it has in common with the typical afternoon ch5 films, American of course. In those films, the main women are inevitably taken in by some psycho or other, often a baby-sitter. In contrast, 'For her sins' has a cast that can actually act. Don't see how it's boring or wooden as some people have commented. I find it gripping as it unfolds. The kid is good but they never talk about about how she is jealous of her baby brother, which only became obvious when the social worker talked to her. That is a shame cos it would have hung the plot together more effectively. Since her inconsistent actions around her mother was confusing.

Excellent and entertaining film, just saw it for a second time and the acting is supurb. The first time I was a bit in awe and didn't get it til years after when I talked about it to my son-in-law. The book might have said more, but the film portrayed Patrick's character as an obsessive, who couldn't bear to get a stain on his table let alone blood stains all over his flat. As for the rapes, he struck me as a man who probably couldn't do it at all let alone with two experiences prostitutes. The way he looked at himself in the mirror when doing the act was a scream, and exactly how he looked in the shower when using his smellies. Also he was engaged to a woman he never took out and having an affair with another who was too stoned to have sex at all. The ending seemed to suggest how invisible the stockbrokers are to the lawyers, who see them as cash cows. You all look the same to me unless you are bringing me business. His co-workers got a tad pious when he told the joke about the woman's head on a stake but I couldn't help thinking they were equally as misogynistic. The bit about the calling cards was hilarious, they were identical, but there's not much you can put on such a card. My favourite part was when he went to the flat of the man he'd just killed to pack his bag and leave the message. I can't remember the exact words but Chris Bale looks out of his window and says that he is worried, to all intents and purposes he was worried about being seen by someone. Instead it was because the man's flat was worth more money than his. I'm still laughing at that bit now, it's a classic line. The gore scenes were daft and the rape and killings more implied than actual but I know most of my women friends wouldn't like it, and understand why. A friend said to me once how the Thatcher era had destroyed the psyche of the British people. I think she was right as we are all individuals now, and Chris Bale brought this home beautifully. Anti-social media has made it worse but we are reliving the 1980 though the stakes are higher as there are even more assets gambled on the stock market.

Gruelling just for the fact you want to slap Hunter for half of the film, because she is so subservient. Absolutely not horror, despite the swallowing of the objects, but a psychological drama. The Syrian helper acted as an antidote to the family from Hades, including the mother-in-law who had nurtured an arrogant and cruel mummy's boy. I liked the ending, I am pro-choice but wouldn't dream of egging someone on to terminate a pregnancy, but was willing it on her, just so she could escape and not subject a new life to the such a cruel family. Apart from Hunter the film was full of nasty and domineering people, a class I cannot abide. Still she carried it, thus the 4 stars.

Why confuse masculinity with sadism?say no, these animals are walking the streets, and because they are rich, probably moaning about all the crime in society. Well viewers one of these animals might be an in-law one day soon or worse a child of yours. America stinks and we are expected to believe it owns the world. Cruel and proud of it America. Terrible film.