FrightFest

4/10 - inconsistent (which isn't surprising) and over long - some of the segments really needed editing down for more punch. Some interesting ideas buried in there, though.

A complete waste of time (and sleep). Lazy, unfocused, overlong, sub standard tosh. Absolute Bobbins, pull your socks up lads.

Some segments were weak, while the wraparound story was naff. Some segments were interesting, if underdeveloped, and I liked some of the weirdness on show. The eyeball story was the most intriguing for me. However, too much was too predictable and some of the segments were too much the same. I was expecting more old school grand guignol horror... A generous 6 / 10

I can only concur all the previous posters.

Though I did 'enjoy' the one with all the sweets and cakes in it.

I liked 2 of the stories in this, but other than that it was quite lackluster.

I'm pissed we stayed for that one instead of going to sleep.
The director mentioned, that the in-between parts where rushed, well, you could tell. What a way to waste Udo Kier. Also, André Hennicke, why would the allow him to talk english?
The "I love you segment" was alright, the one with the sweets was entertaining in a weird kind of way, that eyeballs/fluid thing was just confusing, all in all a waste of my time, especially I was expecting something in the style of Grand Guignol.

nagelfar wrote:Also, André Hennicke, why would the allow him to talk english?

I thought he was pretty damn good! The film was inevitably hit-and-miss, but I Love You, Vision Stains and in particular The Accident made it well worth the late night. If The Accident were released on its own as a self-contained short, it would be winning awards everywhere.

Thought some the stories were weak. Liked the eyeball story. Good to see Udo Keir. Thought he wasted in this film.

All anthology movies vary from section to section - they can't not, really. The best are the Tom Savini and Richard Stanley pieces, and I liked the Buddy Giovizzano as well, while the weakest was the Douglas Buck. And the wraparound had nothing to do with the stories and the stories had nothing to do with the Theatre.

http://streetrw.blogspot.com/2011/08/th ... zarre.html

I liked it but I thought some segments could have been cut. The one with the mother and daughter was great but after 3 about relationships it sorta brought the film to a pause and broke the flow...

Oh dear. Indulgent, overlong and just plain boring. One Good idea with the eye thing but even that didn't really go anywhere.

In the food story just wanted to scream at the big guy to clean his teeth. Made me feel quite icky.

The wrap arounds should have been ditched. The Douglas Buck segment stood out both because it was so superior to the others and also because it was in the wrong film. The Richard Stanley one was probably the poorest - not so much sub-Stuart Gordon, as sub-Brian Yuzna! At least the others tried for some originality.

Richard Stanley's return to the screen with a Doctor Who monster. Tom Savini's cut price straight to video torture crap. Some maddness about sweets and feeders. Injecting eyeballs. Buck and Buddy's section were the best for me. Otherwise; no thanks.

Pretty much what everyone else has said. Over-long, pretentious... I thought only The Accident worked (and should be released as a short in its own right), everything else had moments but somehow got buried underneath its own self-worth.

The Accident would have been a great short but felt completely out of place with the rest of the film