Jump to content

The Hills Have Eyes


Recommended Posts

This movie sucks, period. Feel free to bash it here.

I'll start:

Worst horror film I've ever seen, period. Makes me want to scratch my eyes out. Makes me want to vomit. Makes me want to hurl. I hate it so much. I can't believe I wasted my time on that. Whatever happened to good horror movies? Diane and Thom(Asher) have been trying to get me to see Repulsion. Maybe they're right. And I've got The Exorcist in my queue. Are there no good horror stories left to make? I was on a 70s kick for a while, so maybe I should also revisit The Shining. In modern times, unless it's Asian, it sucks. I apologize if you don't like the word "sucks," you just wouldn't believe how much I hate the time I lost on this piece of sh*t. It's like, you're a half hour in an thinking, "Well, some of this is going to depend on how the narrative arc spins around on itself." And then you're 45 minutes in, going, "Well, I've already invested 45 minutes into it. I am going to completely lose this vested time if I quit now." Then you're a bit over an hour into it and you're going, "HOW MUCH FRIGGIN TIME IS LEFT IN THIS THING?" (I am typing very hard right now, I'm sweating and full of venom at The Hills Have Eyes.) You start looking at the descending timer on your G-4 and you notice there are still 35 minutes left. You start making excuses. "Oh, I just want to see how the nerd kills all these mutants." "Oh, I just want to see if the brother and sister combo get away." "Oh, I just want to see if they ever show the sister nude." Five minutes from the end and the butterflies are in your stomach. Y#ES! This crap will end soon, and I will be rid of it forever, and WILL NOT EVEN RECORD THE BEAST IN MY FILM JOURNAL! (Oh, man you should see how hard and fast I'm typing.) I mean, it starts with REAL photos from REAL people who experienced the horror of a nuclear bomb and were disfigured, and then it goes to this stupid-ass "mutant" horror film that makes The Wicker Man look like art. UGH! I say it again, UGH!

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO COOL HORROR FILMS?

I mean, Vampyr, made nearly 80 years ago, is so much cooler than this CRAP. (Upper case letters indicate portions when my heart is just racing with hate.)

A mutant is something that should be reserved for X-Men movies. Otherwise, keep us out of the desert, and don't let our domesticated dogs kill them off. (Dare I say twice.)

Stoooooooooooooo-pid. Makes me want to burn a Little Pony.

-s.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to the thread for the sequel. Assuming, that is, that you saw the remake and not the original, stef. If you saw the original, then that link is to the thread for the sequel to the remake.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to the thread for the sequel. Assuming, that is, that you saw the remake and not the original, stef. If you saw the original, then that link is to the thread for the sequel to the remake.

What? I don't even know what this means. And I'm all the happier. Cuz anything that confuses me at the moment is better than my seething rage at The Hills Have Eyes.

-s.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alexandre Aja's 2006 film is a remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexandre Aja's 2006 film is a remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film.

Does it suck as much as the remake did? :angry:

-s.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, I can't get enough of those early Carpenter films. He is completely underrated as an artist and auteur and should be accorded the same honor that is granted to the other young filmmakers of his day, like Scorsese or Copolla. And he even scored his own films.

The original The Hills Have Eyes is actually really good. Low-fi, underbudgeted, nifty little edits. Probably Wes Craven's best film, though I haven't seen many others.

"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. And I've been on a 70s kick lately. Maybe I should try and find the original, just to see if it will calm down all the agitation.

-s.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best. Rant. Ever.

Unfortunately, reading such a great rant makes me want to see the film. Must ... stop ... from ... putting ... into .... Netflix .... lineup ...

Formerly Baal_T'shuvah

"Everyone has the right to make an ass out of themselves. You just can't let the world judge you too much." - Maude 
Harold and Maude
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexandre Aja's 2006 film is a remake of Wes Craven's 1977 film.

Does it suck as much as the remake did? :angry:

-s.

Apart from the fact that it stars E.T.'s Mum, the most interesting thing about the Wes Craven original is the way in which it shows the civilized and the barbaric as being two sides of the same coin (i.e. it doesn't take much to turn one family into the other), but it's actually a hugely overrated horror film. Craven's "Last House on the Left", which also has a remake pending, has the same theme and is far more disturbing (but please don't take "far more disturbing" to be a recommendation).

As for Craven's own "Hills Have Eyes Part 2", it is an utter turkey. For me, his only decent film is the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" with Johnny Depp.

Oh man, I can't get enough of those early Carpenter films. He is completely underrated as an artist and auteur and should be accorded the same honor that is granted to the other young filmmakers of his day, like Scorsese or Copolla. And he even scored his own films.

I can't say that I agree. John Carpenter has pretty much squandered his reputation by serving up nothing but schlock for the better part of twenty-five years, and those early "classics" look a lot less impressive these days. "The Fog", while scoring big on atmosphere, is low on chills and has a plot that makes no actual sense; "The Thing" now looks ridiculous because its rubbery SFX have dated so badly; while "Halloween" pilfers far too much from Bob Clark's far superior "Black Christmas" to be regarded as an auteur piece. However, I concede that "Assault on Precinct 13" remains some kind of wonderful.

Edited by The Invisible Man

We are part of the generation in which the image has triumphed over the word, when the visual is dominant over the verbal and where entertainment drowns out exposition. We may go so far as to claim that we live in an age of the image which is also the age of anti-word and potentially is the age of the lie. ~ Os Guiness

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't the original version of THE HILLS HAVE EYES feature Peter Garrett from Midnight Oil?

No. That's Michael Berryman. But they kind of look similair.

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels like the old days around here all of a sudden. :)

-s.

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This movie sucks, period. Feel free to bash it here.

I'll start:

Worst horror film I've ever seen, period. Makes me want to scratch my eyes out. Makes me want to vomit. Makes me want to hurl. I hate it so much. I can't believe I wasted my time on that. Whatever happened to good horror movies? Diane and Thom(Asher) have been trying to get me to see Repulsion. Maybe they're right. And I've got The Exorcist in my queue. Are there no good horror stories left to make? I was on a 70s kick for a while, so maybe I should also revisit The Shining. In modern times, unless it's Asian, it sucks. I apologize if you don't like the word "sucks," you just wouldn't believe how much I hate the time I lost on this piece of sh*t. It's like, you're a half hour in an thinking, "Well, some of this is going to depend on how the narrative arc spins around on itself." And then you're 45 minutes in, going, "Well, I've already invested 45 minutes into it. I am going to completely lose this vested time if I quit now." Then you're a bit over an hour into it and you're going, "HOW MUCH FRIGGIN TIME IS LEFT IN THIS THING?" (I am typing very hard right now, I'm sweating and full of venom at The Hills Have Eyes.) You start looking at the descending timer on your G-4 and you notice there are still 35 minutes left. You start making excuses. "Oh, I just want to see how the nerd kills all these mutants." "Oh, I just want to see if the brother and sister combo get away." "Oh, I just want to see if they ever show the sister nude." Five minutes from the end and the butterflies are in your stomach. Y#ES! This crap will end soon, and I will be rid of it forever, and WILL NOT EVEN RECORD THE BEAST IN MY FILM JOURNAL! (Oh, man you should see how hard and fast I'm typing.) I mean, it starts with REAL photos from REAL people who experienced the horror of a nuclear bomb and were disfigured, and then it goes to this stupid-ass "mutant" horror film that makes The Wicker Man look like art. UGH! I say it again, UGH!

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO COOL HORROR FILMS?

I mean, Vampyr, made nearly 80 years ago, is so much cooler than this CRAP. (Upper case letters indicate portions when my heart is just racing with hate.)

A mutant is something that should be reserved for X-Men movies. Otherwise, keep us out of the desert, and don't let our domesticated dogs kill them off. (Dare I say twice.)

Stoooooooooooooo-pid. Makes me want to burn a Little Pony.

-s.

So did you like it?

If you really, really want to be angry watch the director's French film "High Tension." It has the most improbable twist that I can recall in recent cinema.

Just to get a reading, what horror films do you like? Recommendations could come from knowing where you're coming from.

Stealing! How could you? Haven't you learned anything from that guy who gives those sermons at church? Captain whats-his-name.

- Homer

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh man, I can't get enough of those early Carpenter films. He is completely underrated as an artist and auteur and should be accorded the same honor that is granted to the other young filmmakers of his day, like Scorsese or Copolla. And he even scored his own films.

I can't say that I agree. John Carpenter has pretty much squandered his reputation by serving up nothing but schlock for the better part of twenty-five years, and those early "classics" look a lot less impressive these days. "The Fog", while scoring big on atmosphere, is low on chills and has a plot that makes no actual sense; "The Thing" now looks ridiculous because its rubbery SFX have dated so badly; while "Halloween" pilfers far too much from Bob Clark's far superior "Black Christmas" to be regarded as an auteur piece. However, I concede that "Assault on Precinct 13" remains some kind of wonderful.

Five words: Big Trouble In Little China. Now that's all kinds of wonderful.

"I feel a nostalgia for an age yet to come..."
Opus, Twitter, Facebook

Link to post
Share on other sites
So did you like it?

No.

If you really, really want to be angry watch the director's French film "High Tension." It has the most improbable twist that I can recall in recent cinema.

I saw High Tension. It wasn't great, but it was certainly better than this.

Just to get a reading, what horror films do you like? Recommendations could come from knowing where you're coming from.

This suggestion really threw me off, because I'm starting to learn that I like the idea of a great horror movie much more than an actual horror movie. But to give you an idea: The Exorcist, Psycho, The Silence of The Lambs, Seven, Vampyr... Maybe, does The Cell qualify? I thought the imagery was very scary in that one.

Hey, just for the record, I learned some things about the newer horror genre today. I'm not so sure The Hills Have Eyes is a horror film. I think "splatter film" might be more applicable, or maybe even "torture film," since the director is in with a group of filmmakers known as The Splat Pack (along with directors Darren Lynn Bousman, Neil Marshall, Eli Roth, Rob Zombie, Leigh Whannell, and James Wan).

Interesting story on them here, and wikipedia listing on them here.

Maybe this is common knowledge, but this is the first I'd heard about it so I thought I'd bring it up.

-s.

Edited by stef

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, just for the record, I learned some things about the newer horror genre today. I'm not so sure The Hills Have Eyes is a horror film. I think "splatter film" might be more applicable, or maybe even "torture film," since the director is in with a group of filmmakers known as The Splat Pack (along with directors Darren Lynn Bousman, Neil Marshall, Eli Roth, Rob Zombie, Leigh Whannell, and James Wan).

Interesting story on them here, and wikipedia listing on them here.

Maybe this is common knowledge, but this is the first I'd heard about it so I thought I'd bring it up.

-s.

"Splatter" is a subgenre of horror, and the term is really only a loose one (I myself have used it on this board; see my reply to you of December 31st in the thread on The Exorcist, for example). "Gore movie" means exactly the same thing - a film in which graphic bodily mutilation is both a given and a selling point.

The term isn't actually new. If memory serves, it was George A. Romero who first used it, and the concept of the "splatter movie" came to the fore after John McCarty published his influential if highly flawed little book "Splatter Movies: Breaking the Last Taboo of the Screen" in the early eighties. The book is now out of print and significantly out of date. I bought it when it first came out and I can remember being unimpressed by some of McCarty's conclusions (including his actual definition of splatter movie), though it does contain a very good interview with David Cronenberg (at the time, Cronenberg and Romero were regarded as the kings of splatter, while Herschell Gordon Lewis was its obscure godfather).

I would argue that some of the most famous splatter films of all are actually anything but (e.g. Halloween and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre).

Edited by The Invisible Man

We are part of the generation in which the image has triumphed over the word, when the visual is dominant over the verbal and where entertainment drowns out exposition. We may go so far as to claim that we live in an age of the image which is also the age of anti-word and potentially is the age of the lie. ~ Os Guiness

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17)

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Thing" now looks ridiculous because its rubbery SFX have dated so badly; while "Halloween" pilfers far too much from Bob Clark's far superior "Black Christmas" to be regarded as an auteur piece. However, I concede that "Assault on Precinct 13" remains some kind of wonderful.

There is a consistency to his first eight films (yes, even Starman) that I find compelling. He has a clear sense of mise-en-scene, environmental noise, and soundtrack that he brings to bear on all these different genres. Sure, some of these films aren't exactly "art films," but he doesn't seem to be interested in distinguishing himself from his more low-culture associations. I like the way he designs these films from the ground up, music and everything. He is a far more committed "auteur" in this respect than the others of his generation that have recieved more attention. Sure, his effects are dated. But I can cope with that in context.

Edited by MLeary

"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Link to post
Share on other sites
This suggestion really threw me off, because I'm starting to learn that I like the idea of a great horror movie much more than an actual horror movie. But to give you an idea: The Exorcist, Psycho, The Silence of The Lambs, Seven, Vampyr... Maybe, does The Cell qualify? I thought the imagery was very scary in that one.

Hmm, how do you feel about Argento? Have you seen any of the old Hammer films? Any Val Lewton stuff? Just some thoughts from the films you listed. I have to say I'm intrigued by the idea of only theoretically liking a genre.

This is just a new wave of splatter films, heck if you want to see a true splatter film check out oscar winner Peter Jackson's Dead Alive. That's splatter for you. This would era would probably be properly called torture cinema and smarter people than me could draw parallels to certain world events and the horror cinema that is touching a popular nerve.

Stealing! How could you? Haven't you learned anything from that guy who gives those sermons at church? Captain whats-his-name.

- Homer

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, how do you feel about Argento? Have you seen any of the old Hammer films? Any Val Lewton stuff? Just some thoughts from the films you listed. I have to say I'm intrigued by the idea of only theoretically liking a genre.

I've seen Suspiria, which struck me as overrated. I would imagine I've seen some of the old Hammer productions on Svengoolie TV here in the Chicagoland area. DougC has always encouraged me to see The Cat People and I Walked With a Zombie. Otherwise I really don't have any knowledge of any of these filmmakers. In fact, I had to look them all up just to know how to respond.

Interesting to me, too, is the fact that I can't tell you any of the directors or actors in horror films. It's just something I've never really paid attention to. Which is unlike the way I've been watching movies for a decade or so. I guess I lean heavily toward auteur theory, and have learned to love certain directors more than anything else. -- Except in horror films, where I haven't ever paid attention. It could just be because I honestly don't watch that many horror films anymore, that I did this much more so in my youth. But it could also be that horror is the bastard child of film to begin with -- that no one has ever taken it as seriously as they take other movements in the industry. (For instance, when was the last time a horror film was chosen for opening night at any film festival?) But honestly, if I can explain to you the entire plot of a film like The Hills Have Eyes in one sentence, and if there are many more films like this out there, then perhaps the genre will never (and shouldn't) be taken seriously.

And if the Splat Pack's goal is to see who can outdo the other guy in how to best rip a human body apart, I need to be aware of who these guys are and probably should avoid their films altogether. I saw the word "gorno," for what this group is doing. Eeh -- that's not something I want to be known for supporting.

You've given me some ideas though, and I can appreciate that, so thanks.

-s.

Edited by stef

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen Suspiria, which struck me as overrated.

"Suspiria" will seem overrated if watched on a television screen. I myself was completely underwhelmed the first time I sat through it, but when I saw it projected it suddenly made sense.

Like many horror film directors, Dario Argento burnt out quickly. He hasn't made anything decent since "Opera" and that was twenty years ago now. However, if you are looking to investigate a bona fide horror auteur, he certainly fits the bill. Some snobby film critics who frown at splatter tolerate Argento because he reminds them of Antonioni, but at the end of the day his films still focus on the graphic mutilation of beautiful women. Argento's masterpiece is "Inferno". This, the sequel to "Suspiria", is that rare bird: an arthouse slasher flick.

Another clear splatter auteur (and one whose major films should be relatively easy to track down) is David Cronenberg. Before I go any further, let me say that I regard Cronenberg as being another director whose career is in serious decline, and that I found both "Spider" and "A History of Violence" to be thematically waifer thin and completely overrated. The king is in the altogether and all that.

All of Cronenberg's best films were made between 1969 and 1983 (we go from Stereo to Video) and deal with modern fears of cancer, decay and bodily mutation. Frankenstein is pretty much the blueprint for all of these films as they feature weird science and bad doctors with (usually) good intentions.

Of these, I would particularly recommend the out and out horrors: "Shivers" (which I believe is called "They Came From Within" on your side of the pond), "Rabid" (which includes a genuinely poignant performance from a hardcore porn icon), "The Brood" (this is the one I suggest you start with, but a warning: its central theme is child abuse), "Scanners" (which surprisingly did boffo box office when it was released in 1981), and "Videodrome".

"Videodrome" is so thematically and narratively extreme that it's probably as far as it is possible to go in a mainstream horror movie without losing the popcorn crowd. It might also explain why everything Cronenberg has made since has seemed such a let down. In it, James Woods follows Alice down the rabbit hole (well, Deborah Harry actually) and finds himself in a landscape inspired by Baudrillard and McLuhan.

I should mention that the SFX in most of these films has dated badly, so at times they might seem laughable (though Dick Smith's exploding head in "Scanners" is still pretty damn effective).

If you want a few more horror film recommendations, here are some of my own favourites:

The Exorcist (discussed elsewhere), The Innocents (I can never decide which is my all-time favourite horror film: this or The Exorcist), Kwaiden (the Masters of Cinema DVD is a thing of real beauty and uncut to boot. It even comes with a little book that contains the original ghost stories on which the film is based), Onibaba, Dark Water (NOT the American remake!), Don't Look Now, Carrie, Martin, A Chinese Ghost Story, Tha Haunting (the Robert Wise original), Night of the Demon, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (a modern day fairy tale - think Hansel and Gretel, or Molly Whuppie before you sit down to watch it and the film will seem less offensive), Bride of Frankenstein, The Devil's Backbone, Nosferatu, Night of the Hunter (is this actually a horror film? It certainly feels like one)...

Edited by The Invisible Man

We are part of the generation in which the image has triumphed over the word, when the visual is dominant over the verbal and where entertainment drowns out exposition. We may go so far as to claim that we live in an age of the image which is also the age of anti-word and potentially is the age of the lie. ~ Os Guiness

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting to me, too, is the fact that I can't tell you any of the directors or actors in horror films. It's just something I've never really paid attention to. Which is unlike the way I've been watching movies for a decade or so. I guess I lean heavily toward auteur theory, and have learned to love certain directors more than anything else. -- Except in horror films, where I haven't ever paid attention. It could just be because I honestly don't watch that many horror films anymore, that I did this much more so in my youth. But it could also be that horror is the bastard child of film to begin with -- that no one has ever taken it as seriously as they take other movements in the industry. (For instance, when was the last time a horror film was chosen for opening night at any film festival?) But honestly, if I can explain to you the entire plot of a film like The Hills Have Eyes in one sentence, and if there are many more films like this out there, then perhaps the genre will never (and shouldn't) be taken seriously.

As well it should not be a respected form of cinema. It's low culture. That's its beauty. As Fulci once said "The genre [horror] is a ghetto." I guess I'd compare it to punk rock. It's crude, simple and almost anyone can do it (and do it poorly). But when done well it provides a rush that other genre's just can't.

My love of horror movies (and it pretty much is just horror movies, I haven't read a horror novel since high school) is that at its best it's a form of pure cinema. An absolutely ridiculous film like Raising Cain has glorious moments of imagination visually. It's from watching the Evil Dead and The Fury in junior high I suddenly realized what a director does. Also, it's the only genre that consistently takes seriously the idea of the supernatural and that evil exits in this world.

A lot of horror is all about subtext. Why do slasher films consistently force a majority male audience to identify with a (usually) virginal heroine?

The guys at filmfreak did an excellent breakdown on the entire Friday the 13th series that looks at the machinations behind the grue.

http://filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/fri...he13boxset1.htm

But I would definitely say the genre is not for everyone.

Videodrome" is so thematically and narratively extreme that it's probably as far as it is possible to go in a mainstream horror movie without losing the popcorn crowd. It might also explain why everything Cronenberg has made since has seemed such a let down. In it, James Woods follows Alice down the rabbit hole (well, Deborah Harry actually) and finds himself in a landscape inspired by Baudrillard and McLuhan.

What do you think of The Fly and Dead Ringers. I'd agree that Cronenberg's work has been wanting the last decade or so, but The Fly and Dead Ringers stack up with his best work, to my eyes at least.

Videodrome has some of the most shocking visuals captured on film and is among my favorites of all time. It's message is only more appropriate in a day age when we can watch Sadam's execution on our video phones.

Edited by Chadb

Stealing! How could you? Haven't you learned anything from that guy who gives those sermons at church? Captain whats-his-name.

- Homer

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think of The Fly and Dead Ringers. I'd agree that Cronenberg's work has been wanting the last decade or so, but The Fly and Dead Ringers stack up with his best work, to my eyes at least.

I like them both, but find them a lot less interesting than the films I listed. For me, Cronenberg peaked with "Videodrome". Moreover, I don't personally regard "Dead Ringers" as a horror film.

I dislike "The Dead Zone", "eXistenZ", "Naked Lunch", "Crash", "Spider", and "A History of Violence". I have never seen "Fast Company" or Cronenberg's TV movie "M Butterfly".

Another horror film that really should have been on my list of favourites is Jodorowsky's "Santa Sangre".

We are part of the generation in which the image has triumphed over the word, when the visual is dominant over the verbal and where entertainment drowns out exposition. We may go so far as to claim that we live in an age of the image which is also the age of anti-word and potentially is the age of the lie. ~ Os Guiness

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dislike "The Dead Zone", "eXistenZ", "Naked Lunch", "Crash", "Spider", and "A History of Violence".

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this after hearing you say that you do like his early "horror" films. Excluding The Dead Zone, these five films do what his early films do far more effectively. It seems that an appreciation of his earlier stuff inevitably enables an appreciation of his later stuff, everything sort of pivoting on The Naked Lunch.

"...the vivid crossing of borders between film and theology may save the film from the banality of cinema and festival business, and it may also save the church from the deep sleep of the habitual and the always known."

(Hans Werner Dannowski)

Filmwell | Twitter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...