keith-712-383468

Not sure why it took me so long to view this film (I rarely watch made-for-cable-television films, so that explains that.) I've seen the documentary a number of times and always came away from it wishing I would have had the opportunity to meet the Edies and, particularly, little Edie. I can't explain it, but there's just something so marvelously endearing about her. She should have been a "somebody" other than just being Jackie O.'s cousin.

Watching the 1975 Maysles record of the closing days of Grey Gardens always sets me to thinking, perhaps too much, about what I saw play out between my own deceased mother and grandmother. It always takes me a couple of days to shake that film loose.

I watched the documentary, again, three days ago. Tonight I watched the film--is there a genre known as augmented documentary? The augmented documentary floored me. In particular, Barrymore's performance is stunning. She IS little Edie! I know the documentary very well, all the "classic" lines; and, Barrymore's delivery of them was like...well, watching little Edie in the documentary. Yet, seeing more of the Beales' past played out in rich detail connected so many dots for me (e.g. the very special gift given to Edith by Krug that figures prominently at the film's end.)

At the film's end, I was sorely missing my mother. She was the little Edie in my life; and, she would have loved this film. My grandmother, or big Edie, would have loved it, too. Thankfully, furniture covered with plastic and strict rules about animals in the house (never cats, and only the occasional small dog not allowed in bedrooms) kept the living arrangement tidy; but, the big Edie and little Edie dynamic was all there. So much laughter, so many tears, so much love and so much dislike. This film captured it all for me. Perhaps, to really appreciate it, one needs to have lived it to a certain degree. If one hasn't, I can see where the film might come across less than excellent.

9/10 stars from me and only because the film didn't incorporate "The Marble Faun" eating corn with big Edie; and, I missed little Edit remarking on her "revolutionary" dress for the day.

Love this film. I love it the way I love THE CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE (Frisch/Wise, 1942.) I shouldn't gush, but this film took me completely by surprise. I watched it on Hulu+ yesterday, April 24, 2015, for the first time; and, then, with my husband, watching, again, today. Today, it resonated even more anticipating what I knew about the plot, characters, and climax. Today, I was able to enjoy details I missed of which there were many.

The thing is: I knew, when I watched THE FIELDS for the first time, that it's a special film. It's not easily categorized. When Gladys says, "It's not the dead you have to be afraid, it's the living," or something to that effect, she basically gives the story away. But this film has been poorly described and promoted. Truly, here is what the Hulu+ summary says of the film: "Steven is sent to live in the countryside with his grandparents while his parents work through their troubles. Though his grandparents are happy to host him, they warn Steven not to enter the cornfields next to their house. When he does an EVIL awakens." That's garbage. No "EVIL awakens." This is the trouble with this film, particularly here at IMDb where I can only conjecture that the low-rating for this film is due to the fact that viewers approach this film with expectations that, most definitely, are not fulfilled. There are no zombies, vampires, devil children, or alien grays here. There's something worse. There's the living; and, beyond even that, there is the notion that not all "in-breds" are chainsaw-wielding former-meat butchers turned cannibal murderers.

Having been almost the exact age of Steven (Joshua Ormand) in 1973 and remembering the aftermath of the Manson murders as seen through the evening news...staying up after 11:00 pm with my parents and watching the Detroit-area television premier of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, perhaps in 1973...watching CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1963) on Saturday afternoon horror film programs...having relatives like Gladys--chain-smoking, cuss-like-a-sailor, kind and gentle and crazy funny--and,in retrospect, remembering how the "Summer of Love" turned sour, how there were Manson admirers and "hippies" really freaking out and becoming something of terrorists...suffice it to say, I "get" the horror of this film.

Then there are the references to folklore--the cornfield, the raven leading Steven into it for the first time, the stick hurled out from the corn like an elf-shot. There are the references to classic films and television with clips of DRAGNET and Webb mentioning a tragedy involving a grandmother and her grandson; CARNIVAL OF SOULS with Candace Hilligoss's Mary Henry coming upon "Saltair" for the first time and foreshadowing Steven coming upon "Bushkill Park"; and, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD with its human-flesh eating, recently deceased attacking the farmhouse stronghold (remember the vulnerable back door of that black and white farmhouse kitchen?) foreshadowing the eventual attack on the farmhouse stronghold protecting Hiney, Gladys, and Steven. Then there is Manson and gang looming over all.

If you lived during those early days of the 70s, no matter if in a rural area or a suburb, and you remember stories about LSD-tripping babysitters roasting their chargers and just happened to have a grandmother who loved horror movies, you'll "get" this film. If you didn't live back then, no worries but just don't think that this a film along the lines of CHILDREN OF THE CORN, whatever-that-awful-movie-with-aliens-and-Mel-Gibson-was, or some new tread on Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE because it just isn't.

On the negative side: The dark, metallic filter so commonly used and Tara Reid's wigs.

As a visual index of other horror movies, this works. References and entry terms are many and range from "Bava, Mario" to Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE with DON'T LOOK NOW, "Fulci, Lucio," SUSPIRIA, et al., in between and around. This in no way reflects on the "quality" of the film generally described.

I would suggest reviewing the closing music credits' for references to 4AD, THE BEYOND (...E tu vivrai nel terrore! L'aldilà), 'Choral music,' "Dead Can Dance," "Scriabin, Alexander," et al.

Domains of "marketing" and "branding" or "trademarking" are suggested but, at this time, fall outside the scope of this "review."

I guess I'm the lone dissenter here because I really enjoyed this film. Perhaps my enjoyment of it has something to do with having just seen, a few days before, Kate Bush perform live and turn into a bird at the end of the concert.

Nevertheless, I truly enjoyed this film which really came off as more of a retelling of a legend, fairy tale, or bit of folklore than what I presume others expected coming from the director of TOURIST TRAP (another favorite.) Have to say that this might be a case where, having only seen one other work by the director of this film, I really had no expectations of this piece; and, I feel I was able to watch it unencumbered.

I watch a lot of horror films from all decades--or, I should say, I'm catching up on a lot of them--while working; but, this one actually made me pause in my work and watch it because I was enjoying it and wanted to be engaged with it.

What didn't I like? Well, I wish Anjanette Comer had more screen time. Fell in love with her in THE LOVED ONE and adored her in THE BABY, so I wanted more Comer on screen (And didn't her character in NETHERWORLD say, at one point, "I want to save my son?" or something like that, regarding Corey?) Also, I wanted to know more of the background story of, for lack of a better term, the Bird People. Same is true of the flying Hand with one finger having a viper's head and the palm marked with an eye drawn after those found on representations of the human head from ancient Egypt.

But, have to say, it's the fact that I didn't have a back story on the Bird People that added to the mystery of this film. I like movies that make me pause and wonder; and, this one made me pause and wonder quite a bit. I'll end by saying that I would recommend this film; and, though no masterpiece, it flew above and beyond my expectations.

What to say, what to say? I've never been particularly interested in these Blood Island pics, but, without anything else to watch today, I decided to give BRIDES OF BLOOD a go. Whoa! What a kooky film! This is one creepy fun diamond-in-the-rough made up of various parts of ISLAND OF DOCTOR MOREAU, whatever fell on the Mario Bava cutting-room floor, and next generation HORROR OF SPIDER ISLAND and THE MANSTER with some ATTACK OF THE FUNGUS PEOPLE and FREAKMAKER thrown in.

Exceeded expectations and made for a fun afternoon viewing. Definitely going out on a limb with 7 stars, but it was really enjoyable if you like a certain kind of schlock. Early on in the proceedings, I found a particular part disturbing in the male/female sex dynamic department, but I let it pass as an example of too many things that I don't have time to dissect to a judgement. In the end, I just found it all a bit hallucinatory. Even close ups of the monster: Just too OTT to be anything but kooky-kreepy like a distant relative of the Viy of VIY ("Open my eyelids!")

Not a great movie, but it's certainly not as bad as so many make it out to be, IMHO. I've seen much worse with higher ratings. It kept my interest, and, as much as I found myself vacillating between liking/disliking the main characters, I really wanted different fates for them. As for the enigmatic Corinne: I think she needed a good long walk on the mud flats or maybe a short pier.

Didn't like all the slow motion, the fast motion, etc. I think the film's color palette worked well, but I really am tired of the artsy use of jump cuts and sunsettings in five seconds.

The original THE WICKERMAN is probably the closest "family member" to this film, but it has some interesting 1950s/60s Brit sci-fi elements (I'm thinking John Wyndham here) in the villagers' hoodies and some of the reasons they do what they do.

This is a slow-moving, dread-filled movie, and there is some head-scratching sequences, but I'm all for scratching my head if the mood is right.

I saw this film for the first time last night and loved it! After reading so many mixed or out- right negative reviews of it over the years, I was truly surprised by how much I enjoyed it, how well it was made, how well the Tam Lin legend was updated to a relatively contemporary setting, and, ultimately, how enthralled I was by Gardner's Fairy Queen.

I have to admit the first 15-20 minutes or so did take some work. Not that they were poorly spent minutes, but adjusting to the 1970s milieu of swinging London took some time, though it was great fun watching a very young Joanna Lumley in a film that somewhat prophesied her role as Patsy Stone on ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS.

Now that I've seen this, I wish Roddy had made more films. This is how I like my spooky fairy tales told. May be it all comes down to you're either on the SHREK bus or the TAM LIN bus. I'm definitely taking another ride on the latter.

I've seen a lot of Andy Milligan movies, and I think this is one of his most accomplished and coherent. Sure it's a lot like other haunted house films of the early 80s, but there have been haunted house films since the dawn of cinema, and there's enough oddness--not typical Milligan oddness but interesting oddness--that I found it compelling enough to stick with it to the predictable end. As for the acting, not bad for a Milligan film, and I actually found the characters likable, though I missed some of Milligan's long-time collaborators. For being made for 35K, this is certainly one of Andy's better looking films, too. Then there are those moments of hysteria that only Milligan could muster. I give the guy a lot of credit: He had a certain skewed vision that he kept training a camera on for quite a long time. Not for everyone, but then Staten Island is an acquired taste on so many levels. On a Milligan scale of 1-10, definitely a 6.

Just the perfect thing for a warm, woozy, Sunday afternoon. This is Carroll's Alice done to perfection; and, from beginning to end, I was enthralled. Anne-Marie M.'s playing of Alice is spot on: She's a terrible beauty and Sphinx if ever there was one, but instead of posing riddles, she disdains answering them and explores Wonderland as if it was a cipher and she's another encrypting algorithm.

Miller's approach to conveying Alice's experiences in Wonderland are refreshing, relieving, when compared to so many "kiddy" pantomime versions and effects-heavy versions. The camera magic is reminiscent of Rivette's nod to Carroll, CELINE AND JULIE GO BOATING..., and the conclusion, Alice's waking, is startling and rupturing, a bit like the ending of Assayas' IRMA VEP to this viewer. I was reminded, too, of Peake's GORMENGHAST crossed with De Broca's KING OF HEARTS what with Alice exploring a Victorian estate gone barking mad, bad, and dangerous to know ascending to the heights of delirium with Peter Cook's Hatter entering a courtroom as of swinging on a clock's pendulum.

This is a moving picture Alice to watch again and again.