list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Poltergeist 2: The Other Side on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Poltergeist_2_The_Other_Side/27027/default.aspx Title: Poltergeist 2: The Other Side
Year: 1986
Director: Brian Gibson
Plot: One of the more effectively spooky and financially successful horror films of the '80s got an inevitable sequel with this effects-heavy installment. The Freeling family is trying to grapple with the devastation wrought by the ghosts and ghouls that destroyed their lives. The insurance company doesn't believe their story about what happened to their house, so Steve (Craig T. Nelson), Diane (JoBeth Williams), and their kids, Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke) and Robbie (Oliver Robins), have been reduced to living in the home of Diane's mother, Jess (Geraldine Fitzgerald). Unfortunately for the Freelings, however, their new residence, just like their last, is situated on a haunted patch of unholy ground. A century before, the mad cult leader Kane (Julian Beck) slaughtered his followers nearby, and his evil spirit has returned in an effort to kidnap Carol Anne. When the Freelings realize what's happening, they call upon the psychic medium Tangina Barrons (Zelda Rubinstein) to help them again, and they also receive aid from a kindly Native American spiritualist, Taylor (Will Sampson). Noticeably absent from the sequel was older daughter Dana, who had been played by actress Dominique Dunne; Dunne was killed in 1982 by her obsessed boyfriend. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 26
Number of Lists: 15
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:01:08 GMTPoltergeist 2: The Other Side1986Brian GibsonOne of the more effectively spooky and financially successful horror films of the '80s got an inevitable sequel with this effects-heavy installment. The Freeling family is trying to grapple with the devastation wrought by the ghosts and ghouls that destroyed their lives. The insurance company doesn't believe their story about what happened to their house, so Steve (Craig T. Nelson), Diane (<a href="/players/P____76479/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>JoBeth Williams</a>), and their kids, Carol Anne (<a href="/players/P____53639/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Heather O'Rourke</a>) and Robbie (Oliver Robins), have been reduced to living in the home of Diane's mother, Jess (<a href="/players/P____23694/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Geraldine Fitzgerald</a>). Unfortunately for the Freelings, however, their new residence, just like their last, is situated on a haunted patch of unholy ground. A century before, the mad cult leader Kane (Julian Beck) slaughtered his followers nearby, and his evil spirit has returned in an effort to kidnap Carol Anne. When the Freelings realize what's happening, they call upon the psychic medium Tangina Barrons (<a href="/players/P____61964/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Zelda Rubinstein</a>) to help them again, and they also receive aid from a kindly Native American spiritualist, Taylor (<a href="/players/P____62847/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Will Sampson</a>). Noticeably absent from the sequel was older daughter Dana, who had been played by actress <a href="/players/P____20646/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dominique Dunne</a>; Dunne was killed in 1982 by her obsessed boyfriend. ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide26Tag Target (>10)15323http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/v62487y5ocj.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Poltergeist_2_The_Other_Side/27027/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/10/40945.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/10/2009 6:01:08 PM
Body: If you buy the kids only one new video release this week, make it Pinocchio. Obviously. But if you have enough spending money to buy two, pick up Howard the Duck as well. Finally on DVD in America (with a Special Edition no less), the infamous flop is anything but a great film. Yet it is hardly one of the worst films of the 1980s, despite its reputation. For the past 23 years, I’ve stood by my childhood love for Howard the Duck, constantly acknowledging that I even owned Ellis Weiner’s novelization of the film. Technically, the best reason to defend the movie’s existence is that it directly led to the creation of Pixar. But this reason doesn’t influence anyone to watch the thing. So, in order to defend the movie’s onscreen worth, I’ve come up with ten points for why you should pick up the new Howard the Duck disc and not feel at all guilty about doing so. 1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point… 2.  The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant Those of us who prefer go-motion and other non-CGI effects work will always pay respect to ILM’s achievements on Howard the Duck, particularly their efforts with the Dark Overlord creature in the movie’s final act. People unfortunately tend to focus on the $2 million duck suit (see point #3), but even then Howard didn’t deserve its Razzie for Worst Visual Effects. To compare it to digital creatures, the monster would fit in just fine in either of the Men in Black movies. And for its own time, it was a magnificent creation. So it existed alongside a silly costumed creature in an overpriced B-movie, it still deserved an Oscar nomination for F/X in 1987, a year the Academy recognized Little Shop of Horrors and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (and incomparable winner Aliens). 3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI Those of us who grew up with Muppets, Chewbacca and other non-computer-generated fantasy creatures had no problem with Howard the Duck’s titular fowl being represented as a dwarf in a duck suit. The issue with the effect, though, is that allegedly Lucas had wanted Howard to be a CG creation, but the technology just wasn’t there yet. So, costumes and robotics, all of which reportedly cost $2 million, were viewed as a relative disappointment. But think of how few great CG characters there have been in the past 20 years, and then seriously attempt to argue that Howard would have been any better if made in the years of CGI supremacy. Now, also remember that 1986 was a year that gave us fine puppetry, costumed dwarfs and robotics like that found in Labyrinth (also a Lucasfilm production), Little Shop of Horrors, Legend, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, Troll (sure, why not?) and, yes, Howard the Duck. So really, the only thing disappointing about the duck suit is that it doesn’t really look like the comic book character upon which it’s based. Of course, it’s not likely that a CG version of Howard would have been any more faithful. 4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds. 5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord Between Howard the Duck and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Jeffrey Jones was one of the biggest and best villains of the summer of ‘86. For kids, anyway. But even adults recognized the quality of Jones’ performance in Howard, as Dr. Jenning, the scientist who becomes possessed by the Dark Overlord. To cult audiences, he may have seemed like just another Dr. Lizardo/Lord Worfin (of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension), but while John Lithgow was fine and nutty, Jones is much creepier and much, much more evil, even when he finds time to be deadpan hilarious during the greatest scene in the film, in the “cajun sushi” diner. 6. The Diner Scene Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever. 7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler I would go so far as to argue that Lea Thompson’s crimped-haired Beverly is the hottest female comic book character come to (cinematic) life, but that is certainly subjective. Plenty of people probably prefer Kirsten Dunst, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Pamela Anderson or even Margot Kidder. But Thompson is definitely in there as one of the greatest physical incarnations of a comic book femme d’ fantasy, and the scene where she goes to bed with Howard wearing barely a bit of lingerie (as creepy as the scene is infamous for being) is up there with Dunst’s wet tshirt/upside-down kiss in Spider-Man and any of Pfeiffer’s bondage-bound Catwoman scenes in Batman Returns as one of the hottest moments from any comic book adaptation ever. 8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack Beverly may not have been a rocker in the comics, but this was the 1980s, and you had to have a great synthpop soundtrack, so the character was given a change in career as the leader of a Runaways-inspired band called Cherry Bomb. And for having beaten out more musical contenders for the role, including The Go-Go’s Belinda Carlisle and Tori Amos (then of Y Can’t Tori Read), Lea Thompson does quite well singing such catchy tunes as “Howard the Duck” and “Hunger City.” Cherry Bomb’s music also had some help from Thomas Dolby, George Clinton, Joe Walsh and Stevie Wonder. As for the rest of the soundtrack, Oscar-winning composer John Barry (Out of Africa; the James Bond films) contributes a very fine score. 9. It’s For Kids Because everyone always defends the Star Wars prequels as being for kids, as if that’s really an excuse for faulty filmmaking, I’m going to do the same here. But to do that, I guess I have to also defend the idea that it is indeed a movie for kids. Watching the thing, it’s hard to tell, because there is a lot of content and humor that only adults can or should appreciate, and certainly one of the biggest criticisms with the movie is it’s fluctuations between wanting to be a biting, sarcastic comic book adaptation for older audiences and fans of the source and needing to be a silly movie for kids. But for all the duck nudity, sexuality and other material better suited to mature audiences, there’s not really anything harmful to a kid, and there’s millions of us ‘80s children who grew up okay to prove it. So, while you adults may not be able to enjoy Howard the Duck anymore, even as a nostalgic artifact, your kids will probably like it as much as you used to. 10. It’s Not Redundant Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles). Now, if you still aren’t sure whether or not you should get the DVD, watch some (or all) of the movie on Hulu: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/10/2009 6:01:08 PMIf you buy the kids only one new video release this week, make it Pinocchio. Obviously. But if you have enough spending money to buy two, pick up Howard the Duck as well. Finally on DVD in America (with a Special Edition no less), the infamous flop is anything but a great film. Yet it is hardly one of the worst films of the 1980s, despite its reputation. For the past 23 years, I’ve stood by my childhood love for Howard the Duck, constantly acknowledging that I even owned Ellis Weiner’s novelization of the film. Technically, the best reason to defend the movie’s existence is that it directly led to the creation of Pixar. But this reason doesn’t influence anyone to watch the thing. So, in order to defend the movie’s onscreen worth, I’ve come up with ten points for why you should pick up the new Howard the Duck disc and not feel at all guilty about doing so. 1. It’s No Longer the Worst Lucasfilm Production Take your pick — there’s The Phantom Menace or there’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, either of which could certainly take the prize for being the worst movie to come from George Lucas in his 40 years producing films. Well, maybe not worse than More American Graffiti. But both films were far bigger creative and franchise disappointments than Howard the Duck (financial success is another story, of course), and so they have a relative sort of wretchedness that places them in the bottom of Lucas’ Sarlacc pit of a career. Even if you’re one of those defend-to-the-end Star Wars fanboys who will argue the pros of Menace, at least then consider Willow to be worse than Howard the Duck. The blatant Lord of the Rings rip-off has its historical relevance, but looking back on it now, it’s even more dated than Howard. And regardless of how groundbreaking it was, Willow’s visual effects don’t hold up quite as well as Howard’s old-fashioned, and oft-celebrated craftsmanship. But that’s another point… 2.  The Special Effects Are Technically Brilliant Those of us who prefer go-motion and other non-CGI effects work will always pay respect to ILM’s achievements on Howard the Duck, particularly their efforts with the Dark Overlord creature in the movie’s final act. People unfortunately tend to focus on the $2 million duck suit (see point #3), but even then Howard didn’t deserve its Razzie for Worst Visual Effects. To compare it to digital creatures, the monster would fit in just fine in either of the Men in Black movies. And for its own time, it was a magnificent creation. So it existed alongside a silly costumed creature in an overpriced B-movie, it still deserved an Oscar nomination for F/X in 1987, a year the Academy recognized Little Shop of Horrors and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (and incomparable winner Aliens). 3. The Duck Suit is Still Better Than Most CGI Those of us who grew up with Muppets, Chewbacca and other non-computer-generated fantasy creatures had no problem with Howard the Duck’s titular fowl being represented as a dwarf in a duck suit. The issue with the effect, though, is that allegedly Lucas had wanted Howard to be a CG creation, but the technology just wasn’t there yet. So, costumes and robotics, all of which reportedly cost $2 million, were viewed as a relative disappointment. But think of how few great CG characters there have been in the past 20 years, and then seriously attempt to argue that Howard would have been any better if made in the years of CGI supremacy. Now, also remember that 1986 was a year that gave us fine puppetry, costumed dwarfs and robotics like that found in Labyrinth (also a Lucasfilm production), Little Shop of Horrors, Legend, Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, Troll (sure, why not?) and, yes, Howard the Duck. So really, the only thing disappointing about the duck suit is that it doesn’t really look like the comic book character upon which it’s based. Of course, it’s not likely that a CG version of Howard would have been any more faithful. 4. Parallels, Puns and Playful Philosophy Some fans of the original Howard the Duck comics could argue that the duck suit is hardly the worst offense of unfaithfulness. Other complaints might be the alteration of Beverly’s career or the occasional sacrifice of the comic’s tone in order to pander to younger audiences. But real sticklers may take issue with Howard’s origin, the inclusion of Duckworld (which did come from the comics but wasn’t Howard creator Steve Gerber’s idea of what the character’s home world was like) and the punny parallels that came with it. Yet for those of us who love corny jokes and puns, the idea of an alternate world where everything’s the same, just with descendants of ducks rather than apes, is a lot of fun. It’s the same appreciation that allowed me to enjoy the ska scene and the similarly parallel worlds of The Flintstones and Dinosaurs and the parodies in MAD Magazine. In the first few minutes, we get treated to the following cheesy but delicious sight and audio gags: a Rolling Egg magazine, a Playduck magazine, movie posters for “Splahsdance,” “Breeders of the Lost Stork” and My Little Chickadee (starring W.C. Fowls and Mae Nest), and commercials for feather fungus treatment and the Crazy Eddie spoof “Crazy Webby.” This, plus the opening credit narration and theory of Duckworld evolution were enjoyable to a kid in the midst of learning about Darwin and pondering the existence of alternate worlds. 5. Jeffrey Jones as Dr. Jenning/Dark Overlord Between Howard the Duck and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Jeffrey Jones was one of the biggest and best villains of the summer of ‘86. For kids, anyway. But even adults recognized the quality of Jones’ performance in Howard, as Dr. Jenning, the scientist who becomes possessed by the Dark Overlord. To cult audiences, he may have seemed like just another Dr. Lizardo/Lord Worfin (of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension), but while John Lithgow was fine and nutty, Jones is much creepier and much, much more evil, even when he finds time to be deadpan hilarious during the greatest scene in the film, in the “cajun sushi” diner. 6. The Diner Scene Although it’s mostly thanks to Jones that this scene is so memorable, it’s not just his performance alone that makes it so terrific. Every time I watch the movie, I look forward to the entire episode, from Jones/Jenning/Dark Overlord’s exposition to the waitress’ interactions with the “family” to Howard’s pie and quack-fu fight with a bunch of rednecks. And I will always recommend the movie for this scene alone. It includes a lot of disturbing elements, such as Beverly’s claim that she’s Howard’s girlfriend and the angry mob’s desire to kill and cook a talking duck man, that might have worked better had Howard been represented as an animated character rather than a guy in a suit (bestiality and homicide is just fine in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and Looney Tunes cartoons), but it’s also one of the weirdest and funniest scenes from any comic book adaptation ever. 7. Lea Thompson as Beverly Switzler I would go so far as to argue that Lea Thompson’s crimped-haired Beverly is the hottest female comic book character come to (cinematic) life, but that is certainly subjective. Plenty of people probably prefer Kirsten Dunst, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Michelle Pfeiffer, Pamela Anderson or even Margot Kidder. But Thompson is definitely in there as one of the greatest physical incarnations of a comic book femme d’ fantasy, and the scene where she goes to bed with Howard wearing barely a bit of lingerie (as creepy as the scene is infamous for being) is up there with Dunst’s wet tshirt/upside-down kiss in Spider-Man and any of Pfeiffer’s bondage-bound Catwoman scenes in Batman Returns as one of the hottest moments from any comic book adaptation ever. 8. Cherry Bomb and the Howard the Duck soundtrack Beverly may not have been a rocker in the comics, but this was the 1980s, and you had to have a great synthpop soundtrack, so the character was given a change in career as the leader of a Runaways-inspired band called Cherry Bomb. And for having beaten out more musical contenders for the role, including The Go-Go’s Belinda Carlisle and Tori Amos (then of Y Can’t Tori Read), Lea Thompson does quite well singing such catchy tunes as “Howard the Duck” and “Hunger City.” Cherry Bomb’s music also had some help from Thomas Dolby, George Clinton, Joe Walsh and Stevie Wonder. As for the rest of the soundtrack, Oscar-winning composer John Barry (Out of Africa; the James Bond films) contributes a very fine score. 9. It’s For Kids Because everyone always defends the Star Wars prequels as being for kids, as if that’s really an excuse for faulty filmmaking, I’m going to do the same here. But to do that, I guess I have to also defend the idea that it is indeed a movie for kids. Watching the thing, it’s hard to tell, because there is a lot of content and humor that only adults can or should appreciate, and certainly one of the biggest criticisms with the movie is it’s fluctuations between wanting to be a biting, sarcastic comic book adaptation for older audiences and fans of the source and needing to be a silly movie for kids. But for all the duck nudity, sexuality and other material better suited to mature audiences, there’s not really anything harmful to a kid, and there’s millions of us ‘80s children who grew up okay to prove it. So, while you adults may not be able to enjoy Howard the Duck anymore, even as a nostalgic artifact, your kids will probably like it as much as you used to. 10. It’s Not Redundant Unlike some comic book adaptations, Howard the Duck isn’t a straight lift from the pages of the source material, and it’s better off for it. Some fans of the comic may be annoyed with Howard’s appearance or Beverly’s occupation or the absence of any of Howard’s usual foes, but those of us who saw the movie first can appreciate the differences, because these allow for a better introduction to and curiosity about the comic. In a way, it’s to the original Marvel series as The Incredibles is to the graphic novel of Watchmen (though it’s certainly not anywhere near as smart nor well-crafted as The Incredibles). Now, if you still aren’t sure whether or not you should get the DVD, watch some (or all) of the movie on Hulu: Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/17/35256.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/17/2008 4:01:25 PM
Body: If you took one look at the existence of the new movie Ghost Town and dismissed it on account of its familiarity, you’re ignoring the potential of one of the most valuable plot devices available to fiction. Sure, the employment of ghosts in a narrative may also be evidence of laziness, as the device is just as much a convenience as it is a useful tool for storytellers. Not everyone can be Shakespeare, and of course there is a lot of redundancy and (excuse the pun) lifelessness in the majority of movies involving ghosts. However, ghosts can also be highly representative and/or serve a film on a deeper level than the surface story. To use another pun, ghost movies are not always so transparent. Like zombies, their plot-device sibling, ghosts have a way of signifying greater ideas, subjects and themes, and aren’t always merely about scares and talking-to-thin-air gags. In a conversation with Cinematical’s Erik Davis, Ghost Town director/co-writer David Koepp had this to say about the significance of ghost stories: Part of the reason they’re so enduring is because, well, first off all they give hope — because if they are ghosts, then it means we don’t die when we die. But also because they work really well in a number of genres. Ya know, in a drama like Ghost, or a horror movie, suspense or comedy in our case — I just think they offer so many dramatic possibilities; to have someone that’s dead, but still around to talk about it really suggests a lot of great situations. Okay, so that bit of promotional fluff is actually more about the literal dramatic qualities of the ghost device than the figurative and subtextual, but the quote at least jumpstarted my thinking. Initially I had thought about simply outlining how ghosts have been applied to different film genres, but then I fortunately switched my goal to seek out ten specific ghost films (from the seemingly thousands out there) that utilize the device for more meaningful purpose. Poltergeist (1982) and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986) Ghosts = Threat to Middle-Class In his book Media Culture: Cutural Studies, Identity and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern, critical theorist Douglas Kellner points to a multitude of ideas represented by the ghosts haunting the Freeling family in Poltergeist. In fact, these ideas are discussed over 11 pages (viewable on Google Book Search), also concern the first sequel, Poltergeist II: The Other Side, and include everything from threats of TV’s hold on children to the disintegration of the 1960s counterculture. Generally, though, Kellner sees the first two Poltergeist movies as being about threats to the middle-class and nuclear family in an era of economic insecurity. The ghosts in Poltergeist, Kellner argues, stand in for working-class and racial “others,” and they signify in their actions the break-up of the family unit and fears of losing one’s home and job. With these representations in mind, it’s not so unnecessary, perhaps, that a remake of Poltergeist is currently in the works. The Amityville Horror (1979)  Ghosts = Financial Insecurity This is merely a companion to the Poltergeist films in terms of its ghosts’ representation, but seeing as it was released prior to the first Poltergeist film and it received its allegorical reading from none other than Stephen King (in an article titled “Why We Crave Horror Movies” published in Playboy, quoted in Kellner’s book), I had to include it. Here is what King had to say about the film: “The movie might as well have been subtitled ‘The Horror of the Shrinking Bank Account’…. The Amityville Horror, beneath its ghost-story exterior, is really a financial demolition derby.” Ghostbusters (1984)  Ghosts = Obesity or Scum of Old New York Although it was meant as a joke, the Volkswagon ad in which a projectionist argues his idea that Ghostbusters is a serious warning about the obesity epidemic facing America isn’t completely ridiculous. The points about blobby figures, Dana’s fridge and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man are fair evidence for such an argument. But I’m slightly more interested in the “libertarian” reading of the ghosts as representations of old New York, particularly the filthy, near-bankrupt old New York of the decade preceding the film’s release, which was recently proposed by Karina on this very blog. The Ghostbusters as gentrifying force and pre-Giuliani city-sweepers is interesting, though it might have been more clearly conveyed if some ghosts were in Warriors-like gangs and/or peddling porn in Times Square and/or getting kids hooked on “slime” that can be smoked through a pipe. But I do love the idea that the ghosts are a threat to primarily wealthy New Yorkers just as in real-life it was the homeless and other scum clashing with the new money Manhattanites. Karina also sees the ghosts in the film as a sort of reminder of the New York history that goes back further than the financial and criminal problems of the ‘60s and ‘70s: “Ghostbusters plays on an entire city’s anxieties that, as renters, our spaces don’t belong to us, that there’s a history to our homes that we’ll never know, and probably shouldn’t know.” The Sixth Sense (1999)  Ghosts = Insignificance I love facetious readings of movies, both because I think film scholarship is sometimes too serious and because I think such readings can often be taken more seriously than intended. I’ve already pointed to one example with the VW Ghostbusters ad (there’s a whole series of these ads, of which I find the Toy Story one to be the most hilarious and cogent). Now, I present a humorous address of the major plot hole in The Sixth Sense, part of a Cracked.com list, which asks, regarding the unlikelihood of Bruce Willis’ complete obliviousness to his ghostly existence, “What kind of lifestyle was he living before his death that would make him fail to notice that no one could see or hear him?” Implausible, sure, but it’s also representative of insecurities many of us have about our significance in the world. The Sixth Sense is therefore kind of like the antithesis to It’s a Wonderful Life by showcasing the possibility that your life is so meaningless that were you invisible or dead you would experience no difference. Ghost (1990)  Ghosts = Love’s Bond The fact that, in The Sixth Sense, Bruce Willis doesn’t notice his nonexistence even when in the presence of his wife says something about his character’s perception of and role in that marriage. On the other side of the coin, perhaps, is Demi Moore’s character in Ghost. A precursor and inferior film to Jonathan Glazer’s Birth, it deals more slightly with the same themes of faith and knowability as they pertain to love. This earlier film is far less cynical, though, evident in the employment of a literal ghost rather than simply an outlet for the dead (Ghost would be more similar to Birth if we, like Demi Moore’s character, only saw, heard and had to trust Whoopi Goldberg’s psychic character). There’s still a bit of initial skepticism that love’s bond is nothing more than shared secrets and memories (as if the first convincing evidence that Sam is there, the response “ditto,” couldn’t have been overheard by someone outside the relationship), but continued proof of the ghost’s existence turns the device into an allegory for the spiritual bond between lovers. And it’s apparently a strong enough bond to give Molly (Moore) the faith that she’s kissing her dead husband, even if it may look like she’s kissing a con woman (Goldberg). Over Her Dead Body (2008) Ghosts = Memories of Ex-Lovers Now, imagine if in Ghost, Goldberg’s character actually wanted to pursue a relationship with Molly and was unfortunately haunted by Molly’s previous lover. That’s kind of the premise behind this movie, which proves that even lame ghost movies can at least be allegorical. Here, a psychic character (Lake Bell) falls for a veterinarian (Paul Rudd) and must win his love while being literally haunted by his jealous former fiancée (Eva Longoria). Here the ghost represents that memory of an ex-lover (whether a dumper, dumped or deceased) that can torment the mind of either party in a new relationship, making it difficult to move on to or trust a new lover. Of course, Over Her Dead Body wasn’t the first movie to deal with such a theme, and you’d be better off watching something older and better, like Blithe Spirit, but I wanted to reference some bad films on this list, too. Just be glad I didn’t go ahead and include Ghost Dad as an allegory about inheritance. visit videodetective.com for more info The Univited (1944) Ghosts = Lesbians Continuing a link to the Demi Moore-Whoopi Goldberg kiss (in which Patrick Swazye’s ghost is superimposed over Goldberg to play it safe for the audience), here is a film in which a ghost actually allegorically represents the “spectral presence of lesbianism,” to borrow a phrase from film scholar Patricia White, who writes of this film and others in her look at the correlation between Hollywood ghost movies and lesbian movies in the book Uninvited: Classical Hollywood Cinema and Lesbian Representability. In addition to implying an actual lesbian relationship, which ended with the death of one of the women, the film’s ghost also seems to represent threats of maternal identification and the female Oedipus complex. Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003) Ghosts = Cross-Gendered Spectatorship The ghostly theater audience members in this Tsai Ming-liang film may represent the death of the moviegoer or of cinema itself, but I also see the transvestite ghost as being representative of cross-gendered identification experienced through film spectatorship. 13 Ghosts (1960) Ghosts = Communists Okay, this one is a total stretch, but it works for me because (1) thanks to Joe Dante’s Matinee, I’ve always looked at William Castle films as having a Cold War context and (2) I’m shocked that there aren’t actually any Cold War-era films that more clearly employ ghosts as representatives of a Communist threat. I guess monsters, pod people, witches and aliens were sufficient allegories, but I also think it a missed opportunity to relate ghosts to Karl Marx’s phrase “spectre of Communism.” Anyway, in forcing this film into my wanting of such a Communist allegory, I have only this argument: the goggles used both in the film and (as one of Castle’s many gimmicks) outside the film to detect ghosts could be taken as a sort of fantasy for Americans wishing they had special goggles that could detect any Reds living among them. It’s almost like a counterpart to the goggles that detect capitalistic aliens in They Live, right? No? Well, I tried, and hopefully someone can make a modern ghost story that at least employs ghosts as terrorist allegory. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:01:25 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/17/2008 4:01:25 PMIf you took one look at the existence of the new movie Ghost Town and dismissed it on account of its familiarity, you’re ignoring the potential of one of the most valuable plot devices available to fiction. Sure, the employment of ghosts in a narrative may also be evidence of laziness, as the device is just as much a convenience as it is a useful tool for storytellers. Not everyone can be Shakespeare, and of course there is a lot of redundancy and (excuse the pun) lifelessness in the majority of movies involving ghosts. However, ghosts can also be highly representative and/or serve a film on a deeper level than the surface story. To use another pun, ghost movies are not always so transparent. Like zombies, their plot-device sibling, ghosts have a way of signifying greater ideas, subjects and themes, and aren’t always merely about scares and talking-to-thin-air gags. In a conversation with Cinematical’s Erik Davis, Ghost Town director/co-writer David Koepp had this to say about the significance of ghost stories: Part of the reason they’re so enduring is because, well, first off all they give hope — because if they are ghosts, then it means we don’t die when we die. But also because they work really well in a number of genres. Ya know, in a drama like Ghost, or a horror movie, suspense or comedy in our case — I just think they offer so many dramatic possibilities; to have someone that’s dead, but still around to talk about it really suggests a lot of great situations. Okay, so that bit of promotional fluff is actually more about the literal dramatic qualities of the ghost device than the figurative and subtextual, but the quote at least jumpstarted my thinking. Initially I had thought about simply outlining how ghosts have been applied to different film genres, but then I fortunately switched my goal to seek out ten specific ghost films (from the seemingly thousands out there) that utilize the device for more meaningful purpose. Poltergeist (1982) and Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986) Ghosts = Threat to Middle-Class In his book Media Culture: Cutural Studies, Identity and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern, critical theorist Douglas Kellner points to a multitude of ideas represented by the ghosts haunting the Freeling family in Poltergeist. In fact, these ideas are discussed over 11 pages (viewable on Google Book Search), also concern the first sequel, Poltergeist II: The Other Side, and include everything from threats of TV’s hold on children to the disintegration of the 1960s counterculture. Generally, though, Kellner sees the first two Poltergeist movies as being about threats to the middle-class and nuclear family in an era of economic insecurity. The ghosts in Poltergeist, Kellner argues, stand in for working-class and racial “others,” and they signify in their actions the break-up of the family unit and fears of losing one’s home and job. With these representations in mind, it’s not so unnecessary, perhaps, that a remake of Poltergeist is currently in the works. The Amityville Horror (1979)  Ghosts = Financial Insecurity This is merely a companion to the Poltergeist films in terms of its ghosts’ representation, but seeing as it was released prior to the first Poltergeist film and it received its allegorical reading from none other than Stephen King (in an article titled “Why We Crave Horror Movies” published in Playboy, quoted in Kellner’s book), I had to include it. Here is what King had to say about the film: “The movie might as well have been subtitled ‘The Horror of the Shrinking Bank Account’…. The Amityville Horror, beneath its ghost-story exterior, is really a financial demolition derby.” Ghostbusters (1984)  Ghosts = Obesity or Scum of Old New York Although it was meant as a joke, the Volkswagon ad in which a projectionist argues his idea that Ghostbusters is a serious warning about the obesity epidemic facing America isn’t completely ridiculous. The points about blobby figures, Dana’s fridge and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man are fair evidence for such an argument. But I’m slightly more interested in the “libertarian” reading of the ghosts as representations of old New York, particularly the filthy, near-bankrupt old New York of the decade preceding the film’s release, which was recently proposed by Karina on this very blog. The Ghostbusters as gentrifying force and pre-Giuliani city-sweepers is interesting, though it might have been more clearly conveyed if some ghosts were in Warriors-like gangs and/or peddling porn in Times Square and/or getting kids hooked on “slime” that can be smoked through a pipe. But I do love the idea that the ghosts are a threat to primarily wealthy New Yorkers just as in real-life it was the homeless and other scum clashing with the new money Manhattanites. Karina also sees the ghosts in the film as a sort of reminder of the New York history that goes back further than the financial and criminal problems of the ‘60s and ‘70s: “Ghostbusters plays on an entire city’s anxieties that, as renters, our spaces don’t belong to us, that there’s a history to our homes that we’ll never know, and probably shouldn’t know.” The Sixth Sense (1999)  Ghosts = Insignificance I love facetious readings of movies, both because I think film scholarship is sometimes too serious and because I think such readings can often be taken more seriously than intended. I’ve already pointed to one example with the VW Ghostbusters ad (there’s a whole series of these ads, of which I find the Toy Story one to be the most hilarious and cogent). Now, I present a humorous address of the major plot hole in The Sixth Sense, part of a Cracked.com list, which asks, regarding the unlikelihood of Bruce Willis’ complete obliviousness to his ghostly existence, “What kind of lifestyle was he living before his death that would make him fail to notice that no one could see or hear him?” Implausible, sure, but it’s also representative of insecurities many of us have about our significance in the world. The Sixth Sense is therefore kind of like the antithesis to It’s a Wonderful Life by showcasing the possibility that your life is so meaningless that were you invisible or dead you would experience no difference. Ghost (1990)  Ghosts = Love’s Bond The fact that, in The Sixth Sense, Bruce Willis doesn’t notice his nonexistence even when in the presence of his wife says something about his character’s perception of and role in that marriage. On the other side of the coin, perhaps, is Demi Moore’s character in Ghost. A precursor and inferior film to Jonathan Glazer’s Birth, it deals more slightly with the same themes of faith and knowability as they pertain to love. This earlier film is far less cynical, though, evident in the employment of a literal ghost rather than simply an outlet for the dead (Ghost would be more similar to Birth if we, like Demi Moore’s character, only saw, heard and had to trust Whoopi Goldberg’s psychic character). There’s still a bit of initial skepticism that love’s bond is nothing more than shared secrets and memories (as if the first convincing evidence that Sam is there, the response “ditto,” couldn’t have been overheard by someone outside the relationship), but continued proof of the ghost’s existence turns the device into an allegory for the spiritual bond between lovers. And it’s apparently a strong enough bond to give Molly (Moore) the faith that she’s kissing her dead husband, even if it may look like she’s kissing a con woman (Goldberg). Over Her Dead Body (2008) Ghosts = Memories of Ex-Lovers Now, imagine if in Ghost, Goldberg’s character actually wanted to pursue a relationship with Molly and was unfortunately haunted by Molly’s previous lover. That’s kind of the premise behind this movie, which proves that even lame ghost movies can at least be allegorical. Here, a psychic character (Lake Bell) falls for a veterinarian (Paul Rudd) and must win his love while being literally haunted by his jealous former fiancée (Eva Longoria). Here the ghost represents that memory of an ex-lover (whether a dumper, dumped or deceased) that can torment the mind of either party in a new relationship, making it difficult to move on to or trust a new lover. Of course, Over Her Dead Body wasn’t the first movie to deal with such a theme, and you’d be better off watching something older and better, like Blithe Spirit, but I wanted to reference some bad films on this list, too. Just be glad I didn’t go ahead and include Ghost Dad as an allegory about inheritance. visit videodetective.com for more info The Univited (1944) Ghosts = Lesbians Continuing a link to the Demi Moore-Whoopi Goldberg kiss (in which Patrick Swazye’s ghost is superimposed over Goldberg to play it safe for the audience), here is a film in which a ghost actually allegorically represents the “spectral presence of lesbianism,” to borrow a phrase from film scholar Patricia White, who writes of this film and others in her look at the correlation between Hollywood ghost movies and lesbian movies in the book Uninvited: Classical Hollywood Cinema and Lesbian Representability. In addition to implying an actual lesbian relationship, which ended with the death of one of the women, the film’s ghost also seems to represent threats of maternal identification and the female Oedipus complex. Goodbye, Dragon Inn (2003) Ghosts = Cross-Gendered Spectatorship The ghostly theater audience members in this Tsai Ming-liang film may represent the death of the moviegoer or of cinema itself, but I also see the transvestite ghost as being representative of cross-gendered identification experienced through film spectatorship. 13 Ghosts (1960) Ghosts = Communists Okay, this one is a total stretch, but it works for me because (1) thanks to Joe Dante’s Matinee, I’ve always looked at William Castle films as having a Cold War context and (2) I’m shocked that there aren’t actually any Cold War-era films that more clearly employ ghosts as representatives of a Communist threat. I guess monsters, pod people, witches and aliens were sufficient allegories, but I also think it a missed opportunity to relate ghosts to Karl Marx’s phrase “spectre of Communism.” Anyway, in forcing this film into my wanting of such a Communist allegory, I have only this argument: the goggles used both in the film and (as one of Castle’s many gimmicks) outside the film to detect ghosts could be taken as a sort of fantasy for Americans wishing they had special goggles that could detect any Reds living among them. It’s almost like a counterpart to the goggles that detect capitalistic aliens in They Live, right? No? Well, I tried, and hopefully someone can make a modern ghost story that at least employs ghosts as terrorist allegory. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/dibot/archive/2008/3/25/26607.aspx Post By: dibot
Post To: dibot Blog
Post Date: 3/25/2008 10:54:03 PM
Body: Dark Ride is one of the After Dark Horrorfest movies from 2006. And, I gotta tell you, it's just not that scary. A group of college kids who never utter a word of realistic dialogue, take a detour from their spring break vacation to visit a carnival ride in the middle of the night. Great idea. The kills are sort of good . There are a couple of creepy moments, but this was pretty much one ridiculous thing after another. Penny Dreadful is another of the After Dark movies, but this one is actually really good. A girl who has an intense fear of cars takes a trip with her doctor to try and over come her terror. They pick up a hitchhiker and things go very, very wrong. This movie is creepy and extremely tense. The acting was pretty good. Rachel Miner ("Tooth & Nail") really sold the anxiety and the fear. Loved it. Night of the Iguana is based on a Tennessee Williams ("The Yellow Bird") play. So, of course, it's quite a bit messed up. A minister, Richard Burton ("Nineteen Eighty-four"), freaks out on his congregation and ends up leading tours of Mexico for church groups. A young girl in the group keeps coming onto him, and , despite his efforts to rebuff her, her crazy, harpy guardian is sure he's taken advantage of her. Burton hijacks the tour and they end up at a remote villa where things come to a head. The acting is top notch. The dialogue is great, and the emotions are out of control. Very interesting, but not always easy to sit through. People freak out a lot. Poltergeist II: The Other Side is actually pretty good for a sequel. The original players are back and the story picks up right where the first film left off. The ghosts have gotten a taste of Carol Anne, and they want some more. Creepy, creepy man (Julian Beck, "9 1/2 Weeks") who is enough to give me nightmares, comes after the family and Will Sampson ("Firewalker") who always plays the sage Indian, tries to protect them. The effects at the end of the movie are pretty dated, but everything up to there is quite good. No End in Sight tries to tell the story of how the U.S. got into the Iraq war, and, once there, how we botched the operation. There's a lot of information to examine. The filmmakers did a good job of presenting it and of trying to be fair. Many of the top people involved in the Iraq decision making declined to be interviewed for the film, and I think that would have made it a more enlightening experience. As it was, the film made me think. And that's always good.
]]>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:54:03 GMTdibotdibot Blog3/25/2008 10:54:03 PMDark Ride is one of the After Dark Horrorfest movies from 2006. And, I gotta tell you, it&#39;s just not that scary. A group of college kids who never utter a word of realistic dialogue, take a detour from their spring break vacation to visit a carnival ride in the middle of the night. Great idea. The kills are sort of good . There are a couple of creepy moments, but this was pretty much one ridiculous thing after another. Penny Dreadful is another of the After Dark movies, but this one is actually really good. A girl who has an intense fear of cars takes a trip with her doctor to try and over come her terror. They pick up a hitchhiker and things go very, very wrong. This movie is creepy and extremely tense. The acting was pretty good. Rachel Miner (&quot;Tooth &amp; Nail&quot;) really sold the anxiety and the fear. Loved it. Night of the Iguana is based on a Tennessee Williams (&quot;The Yellow Bird&quot;) play. So, of course, it&#39;s quite a bit messed up. A minister, Richard Burton (&quot;Nineteen Eighty-four&quot;), freaks out on his congregation and ends up leading tours of Mexico for church groups. A young girl in the group keeps coming onto him, and , despite his efforts to rebuff her, her crazy, harpy guardian is sure he&#39;s taken advantage of her. Burton hijacks the tour and they end up at a remote villa where things come to a head. The acting is top notch. The dialogue is great, and the emotions are out of control. Very interesting, but not always easy to sit through. People freak out a lot. Poltergeist II: The Other Side is actually pretty good for a sequel. The original players are back and the story picks up right where the first film left off. The ghosts have gotten a taste of Carol Anne, and they want some more. Creepy, creepy man (Julian Beck, &quot;9 1/2 Weeks&quot;) who is enough to give me nightmares, comes after the family and Will Sampson (&quot;Firewalker&quot;) who always plays the sage Indian, tries to protect them. The effects at the end of the movie are pretty dated, but everything up to there is quite good. No End in Sight tries to tell the story of how the U.S. got into the Iraq war, and, once there, how we botched the operation. There&#39;s a lot of information to examine. The filmmakers did a good job of presenting it and of trying to be fair. Many of the top people involved in the Iraq decision making declined to be interviewed for the film, and I think that would have made it a more enlightening experience. As it was, the film made me think. And that&#39;s always good. http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_A_Movie_You_Wouldn_t_Watch_Again/222/8809/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 5/14/2007 9:53:16 PM
Body: [quote user="Indie"] Poltergeist 2- I am glad I watched it once, but really useless in my opinion. [/quote]I have to say that I liked Poltergeist 2, I think it was the creepy old preacher man singing old church hymns, that was my favorite part about it. Now Poltergeist 3 was pretty lame at times, it did have a few little goosebump moments but it was very forgettable.
]]>Tue, 15 May 2007 01:53:16 GMTdivinemsjunebugHORROR MOVIES 1015/14/2007 9:53:16 PM[quote user="Indie"] Poltergeist 2- I am glad I watched it once, but really useless in my opinion. [/quote]I have to say that I liked Poltergeist 2, I think it was the creepy old preacher man singing old church hymns, that was my favorite part about it. Now Poltergeist 3 was pretty lame at times, it did have a few little goosebump moments but it was very forgettable. http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_A_Movie_You_Wouldn_t_Watch_Again/222/8755/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Indie
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 5/14/2007 10:57:05 AM
Body: Poltergeist 2- I am glad I watched it once, but really useless in my opinion.
]]>Mon, 14 May 2007 14:57:05 GMTIndieHORROR MOVIES 1015/14/2007 10:57:05 AMPoltergeist 2- I am glad I watched it once, but really useless in my opinion. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 830

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT8748157830Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/disturbing/MemberTagFilms.aspxdisturbing
Number of films tagged: 283

Number of people who tagged: 119

Number of times used: 394

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT283119394Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/horror/MemberTagFilms.aspxhorror
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 110

Number of times used: 344

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:48:03 GMT260110344Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Creepy/MemberTagFilms.aspxCreepy
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 211

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:55:54 GMT17081211Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ghost/MemberTagFilms.aspxghost
Number of films tagged: 1219

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 137

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:30:06 GMT121958137Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/kidnapping/MemberTagFilms.aspxkidnapping
Number of films tagged: 2851

Number of people who tagged: 49

Number of times used: 172

]]>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:39:42 GMT285149172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sequel/MemberTagFilms.aspxsequel
Number of films tagged: 126

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 171

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:25:48 GMT12646171Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ghosts/MemberTagFilms.aspxghosts
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 79

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:29:59 GMT584279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/girl/MemberTagFilms.aspxgirl
Number of films tagged: 1805

Number of people who tagged: 33

Number of times used: 64

]]>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:38:02 GMT18053364Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lies/MemberTagFilms.aspxlies
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 85

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT1873285Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rescue/MemberTagFilms.aspxrescue
Number of films tagged: 4080

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 142

]]>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:36 GMT408031142Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/priest/MemberTagFilms.aspxpriest
Number of films tagged: 703

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 35

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 03:09:32 GMT7032435Tag