What's new

Anyone up for the Fright Night remake? (2 Viewers)

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,425
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Joe Karlosi said:
Quote:

You're going back and forth on this. Now you're saying that it IS a matter of familiarity with the audiences --- before you were mainly speaking about familiarity with regard to what's a better bet for HOLLYWOOD.  But whatever the case, I don't understand people defending the choice to do remakes. It's the dumbing down of America.

 

And no, they cannot possibly have any idea of aproximately what they expect to make from a remake of FRIGHT NIGHT. Whatever the movie did in 1985 has no bearing on a new generation in 2011.

 

Which movies are doing the best? Not all remakes and sequels make #1, and not all have made a lot of money. Now, how many "brand new movies with fresh ideas" are being offered in the current Top Ten? Not many -- and if they're not being made and presented as the main option, then they won't make th emoney.

 

What I'm suggesting is --  IF Hollywood suddenly decided "No More Remakes And Sequels" and only made every single movie as a BRAND NEW IDEA, then we'd still see a Top Five, and those New movies would be the ones that would make Millions. It's not as if the people are going to stop going to the theaters, just because they don't see a remake of LITTlE BIG MAN on the marquee. 
I think both audiences and studios want something that they're familiar with. Like I said, if something worked before, a studio is more inclined to put money into and box office grosses show undeniably that the audience wants something they know. As for what if Hollywood stopped making sequels and remakes, maybe you're right but you might as well say "If Hollywood only makes great movies, they'll make more money", it's never going to happen.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008
Originally Posted by TravisR
I think both audiences and studios want something that they're familiar with. Like I said, if something worked before, a studio is more inclined to put money into and box office grosses show undeniably that the audience wants something they know..


Then what about when the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN was new? What about when KUNG FU PANDA #1 was new? At one point the people went to see something "new", didn't they?

And I think there are just as many audience members who are becoming more vocal about being sick and tired of the same old thing, and would welcome something fresh. At one time, PIRATES and PANDA were fresh.


People do want new and are getting disgusted. You hear people saying it all the time, and there are reports on it in mags and newspapers all the time.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,425
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Joe Karlosi said:
 

 

Then what about when the first PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN was new? What about when KUNG FU PANDA #1 was new? At one point the people went to see something "new", didn't they? 

 

And I think there are just as many audience members who are becoming more vocal about being sick and tired of the same old thing, and would welcome something fresh. At one time, PIRATES and PANDA were fresh.

 

People do want new and are getting disgusted. You hear people saying it all the time, and there are reports on it in mags and newspapers all the time.
 

 
Yes, everything has to start somewhere but the Pirates Of The Caribbean series illustrates my point more than yours because the first one is the lowest grossing movie of the series in terms of worldwide grosses. The newest one has only been out for a month and it's already made $200 million more than the original made in its original run worldwide. I agree that people say that they want something new but the list of what actually makes the most money proves that, as of now, there's more people who want the same old thing and as long as they keep paying, they'll keep getting it.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
My take on this issue is this, no it isn't accurate to say "the studios are just giving the people what they want.", what IS accurate to say is that "studios are giving people what they're throwing their money at because that's all we're giving them."


If I were hungry and all there was were stale donuts I would of course eat them because that's all they have, but if something like pizza or spaghetti were offered along with the stale donuts I'd eat the pizza and spaghetti instead.


My point is if the studios suddenly stopped making remakes, people would never miss them, not raise a fuss and go see whatever is available because I truly believe that when it comes to movies people adapt very quickly to what is coming out and have a short memory for what the trend was a few months ago.


People don't care about remakes, it's the studios perception that they do because they are giving audiences nothing original to choose from so a false reality is being created in the minds of those studios.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,425
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I'd be curious to see a list showing how remakes stack up against original movies in terms of earnings over the last, say, 5 years. I know Paranormal Activity made alot of money but even something like Insidious is really only a hit because it was inexpensive. EDIT: Box Office Mojo breaks things down into subgenres but I compiled a list of horror movies from 2006 to today. Remakes that made $50 million or more from 2006: My Bloody Valentine- $51 The Omen- $58 Halloween- $58 The Wolfman- $61 A Nightmare On Elm Street- $63 Friday The 13th- $65 Original movies (no remakes or sequels) that made $50 million or more from 2006: The Strangers- $52 Insidious- $53 The Haunting In Connecticut- $55 Paranormal Activity- $109 Unless you can catch lightning in a bottle like Paranormal Activity, I think this list helps to show why studios pump out remakes. HOWEVER, it doesn't look at important factors like how many original horror movies were made in that period vs. remakes (though I'd guess that original movies did outnumber remakes) and it doesn't look at what remakes failed (though it doesn't look at what original movies failed either) so it's certainly not proof of much more than what those 10 movies made in the U.S.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

My take on this issue is this, no it isn't accurate to say "the studios are just giving the people what they want.", what IS accurate to say is that "studios are giving people what they're throwing their money at because that's all we're giving them."


If I were hungry and all there was were stale donuts I would of course eat them because that's all they have, but if something like pizza or spaghetti were offered along with the stale donuts I'd eat the pizza and spaghetti instead.


My point is if the studios suddenly stopped making remakes, people would never miss them, not raise a fuss and go see whatever is available because I truly believe that when it comes to movies people adapt very quickly to what is coming out and have a short memory for what the trend was a few months ago.


People don't care about remakes, it's the studios perception that they do because they are giving audiences nothing original to choose from so a false reality is being created in the minds of those studios.


That's it, exactly - and just what I have been trying to get across.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
You can pick a few that "didn't make their money back" but for the most part everyone of these made cash back and this is before foreign, video, cable and so on. The odds of you making a film like these that doesn't make money is a lot less than throwing something "original" out there. **It's worth noting that two of the bombs (THE WOLFMAN, THE STEPFORD WIVES) still made great money but their large budgets killed them.



I think it's also fair to say that the majority of these titles were "poor" to "fair" at best in terms of quality. Various stages of horror have happened over the past several decades but they usually die out. Those beloved 80s slashers eventually ran out of gas as did the SCREAM type films of the 90s. This trend has lasted a lot longer and we've got dozens more coming and this is just one genre nevermind everything else.







1

The Ring

DW

$129,128,133

2,927

$15,015,393

1,981

10/18/02



2

The Grudge

Sony

$110,359,362

3,348

$39,128,715

3,245

10/22/04



3

The Haunting

DW

$91,411,151

2,881

$33,435,140

2,808

7/23/99



4

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

NL

$80,571,655

3,018

$28,094,014

3,016

10/17/03



5

The Ring Two

DW

$76,231,249

3,341

$35,065,237

3,332

3/18/05



6

The Amityville Horror (2005)

MGM

$65,233,369

3,323

$23,507,007

3,323

4/15/05



7

Friday the 13th (2009)

WB (NL)

$65,002,019

3,105

$40,570,365

3,105

2/13/09



8

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

WB (NL)

$63,075,011

3,332

$32,902,299

3,332

4/30/10



9

The Wolfman

Uni.

$61,979,680

3,223

$31,479,235

3,222

2/12/10



10

The Stepford Wives

Par.

$59,484,742

3,057

$21,406,781

3,057

6/11/04



11

Dawn of the Dead

Uni.

$59,020,957

2,748

$26,722,575

2,745

3/19/04



12

Halloween (2007)

MGM/W

$58,272,029

3,475

$26,362,367

3,472

8/31/07



13

The Omen (2006)

Fox

$54,607,383

2,723

$16,026,496

2,723

6/6/06



14

My Bloody Valentine 3-D

LGF

$51,545,952

2,534

$21,241,456

2,534

1/16/09



15

When a Stranger Calls

SGem

$47,860,214

3,004

$21,607,203

2,999

2/3/06



16

Prom Night (2008)

SGem

$43,869,350

2,821

$20,804,941

2,700

4/11/08



17

Thirteen Ghosts

WB

$41,867,960

2,781

$15,165,355

2,781

10/26/01



18

The Hills Have Eyes

FoxS

$41,778,863

2,621

$15,708,512

2,620

3/10/06



19

House on Haunted Hill

WB

$40,846,082

2,710

$15,946,032

2,710

10/29/99



20

The Fly

Fox

$40,456,565

1,201

$7,007,423

1,195

8/15/86



21

The Grudge 2

Sony

$39,143,839

3,214

$20,825,300

3,211

10/13/06



22

The Crazies

Over.

$39,123,589

2,479

$16,067,552

2,476

2/26/10



23

Halloween II (2009)

W/Dim.

$33,392,973

3,088

$16,349,565

3,025

8/28/09



24

The Last House on the Left (2009)

Uni.

$32,752,215

2,402

$14,118,685

2,401

3/13/09



25

House of Wax

WB

$32,064,800

3,111

$12,077,236

3,111

5/6/05



26

The Eye

LGF

$31,418,697

2,470

$12,425,776

2,436

2/1/08



27

Mirrors

Fox

$30,691,439

2,664

$11,161,074

2,664

8/15/08



28

The Fog (2005)

SonR

$29,550,869

2,972

$11,752,917

2,972

10/14/05



29

The Stepfather (2009)

SGem

$29,062,561

2,734

$11,581,586

2,734

10/16/09



30

The Uninvited

P/DW

$28,596,818

2,344

$10,325,824

2,344

1/30/09



31

One Missed Call

WB

$26,890,041

2,240

$12,511,473

2,240

1/4/08



32

Shutter

Fox

$25,928,550

2,756

$10,447,559

2,753

3/21/08



33

Dark Water

BV

$25,473,352

2,657

$9,939,251

2,657

7/8/05



34

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

UA

$24,946,533

445

$1,298,129

445

12/22/78



35

The Wicker Man

WB

$23,649,127

2,784

$9,610,204

2,784

9/1/06



36

Psycho (1998)

Uni.

$21,456,130

2,489

$10,031,850

2,477

12/4/98



37

The Hills Have Eyes 2

FoxA

$20,804,166

2,465

$9,686,362

2,447

3/23/07



38

Pulse

W/Dim.

$20,264,436

2,323

$8,203,822

2,323

8/11/06



39

The Thing (1982)

Uni.

$19,629,760

910

$3,107,897

840

6/25/82



40

The Hitcher (2007)

Rog.

$16,472,961

2,836

$7,818,239

2,831

1/19/07



41

Black Christmas (2006)

MGM/W

$16,273,581

1,544

$3,723,364

1,544

12/25/06



42

The Invasion

WB

$15,074,191

2,776

$5,951,409

2,776

8/17/07



43

Sorority Row

Sum.

$11,965,282

2,665

$5,059,802

2,665

9/11/09



44

Village of the Damned

Uni.

$9,418,365

1,919

$3,222,450

1,890

4/28/95



45

The Blob

TriS

$8,247,943

1,081

$2,644,920

1,081

8/5/88



46

Cat People

Uni.

$7,000,000

600

$1,617,636

600

4/2/82



47

Willard

NL

$6,886,089

1,762

$4,010,593

1,761

3/14/03



48

Night of the Living Dead

Col.

$5,835,247

1,544

$2,884,679

1,544

10/19/90



49

Invaders From Mars

Can.

$4,884,663

1,212

$2,046,576

1,212

6/6/86



50

Funny Games

WIP

$1,294,919

288

$544,833

286

3/14/08



51

Body Snatchers

WB

$428,868

34

$31,494

13

1/14/94



52

Night of the Living Dead 3D

MME

$271,000

145

$215,300

145

11/10/06



53

I Spit on Your Grave

Anch.

$93,051

12

$32,440

12

10/8/10
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

it's the studios perception that they do because they are giving audiences nothing original to choose from so a false reality is being created in the minds of those studios.


July has TRANSFORMERS III, HARRY POTTER, CAPTAIN AMERICA,A THE SMURFS and WINNIE THE POO lined up but since people want original movies (if they're out there) then they can pick from these:


Delhi Belly
The Perfect Host
Beats, Rhymes & Life
Fading of the Cries
Project Nim
Ranchero
Rapt
Sholem Aleichem
Buzzkill
Daylight
Life Above All
Salvation Boulevard
Snow Flower and the Secret Fan
Tabloid
Another Earth
A Little Help
The Myth of An American Sleepover
Sarah's Key
Attack the Block
The Devil's Double
El Billi
The Future
Good Neighbors
The Guard
Life in a Day
Point Blank



A lot more original, small movies than blockbusters so let's see how many of you against these remakes/sequels/unoriginal films actually watch any of them. How many of those fans lining up for midnight screenings have heard of ANY of those films mentioned? I'd question how many people in this very thread (myself included) had heard of them. Posting thoughts on a message board isn't going to do anyone any good. Vote with your money. Skip the Hollywood stuff and visit your arthouse theater.

And don't worry, when FRIGHT NIGHT hits theaters there are just as many small movies for people to flock to.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
25,139
Real Name
Malcolm
A high percentage of those films will never see a wide release that trickles down to the multiplexes of middle America. The "art house theater" is nothing but a fairy tale in most areas.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
But don't you think if SARAH'S KEY could open at 3700 theaters and bring in $30 million on an opening weekend then the studio would do it? Theater owners are going to bring in whatever puts butts in the seats and they'd be stupid to book any of those films. As a business man would you rather have a 10-screen theater with THE HANGOVER II, TRANSFORMERS III and HARRY POTTER 22 on ten of those screens with sold out shows or EL BILLI, an original work, on one screen and getting three ticket sales the entire week. It's fairly clear to me that if the owners could make money off these films then they would.


I wish CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS could be released on 3000+ screens but if owners did that then they'd go broke.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

But don't you think if SARAH'S KEY could open at 3700 theaters and bring in $30 million on an opening weekend then the studio would do it? Theater owners are going to bring in whatever puts butts in the seats and they'd be stupid to book any of those films. As a business man would you rather have a 10-screen theater with THE HANGOVER II, TRANSFORMERS III and HARRY POTTER 22 on ten of those screens with sold out shows or EL BILLI, an original work, on one screen and getting three ticket sales the entire week. It's fairly clear to me that if the owners could make money off these films then they would.


I wish CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS could be released on 3000+ screens but if owners did that then they'd go broke.


But what I don't think you understand is that the studios and theater owners themselves created this monster. It's now become a vicious cycle, but it is a cycle which could be broken one day -- IF THEY CHOOSE TO BREAK IT. If the only films released to multiplexes were movies like those "arthouse" titles you've listed, then this is all the public would have to choose from. Eventually, they would make the big bucks. People will not stop going ot the movies, and if there are no movies like HARRY POTTER or TRANSFORMERS offered on the menu, then they will not be able to order them. If big films like HARRY POTTER and TRANSOFRMERS were only viewable over at tiny arthouse theaters, they'd do less business. It's a very simple concept. But Hollywood and theater ownerswould rather contribute to the Dumbing Down Of America.



I would also say that those small movies you've named also make money back, because they're not as expensive to produce. I was just watching an interview with Woody Allen and he said that very thing about his own small films. Every single person I've heard from who has seen MIDNIGHT IN PARIS think it's a good or great movie... it's a damn shame that somewhere along the line, moviegoers became dumbed down to mainly wanting stuff like TRANSFORMERS.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,425
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Joe Karlosi said:
Quote:

 

But what I don't think you understand is that the studios and theater owners  themselves created this monster. It's now become a vicious cycle, but it is a cycle which could be broken one day -- IF THEY CHOOSE TO BREAK IT. If the only films released to multiplexes were movies like those "arthouse" titles you've listed, then this is all the public would have to choose from. Eventually, they would make the big bucks. People will not stop going ot the movies, and if there are no movies like HARRY POTTER or TRANSFORMERS offered on the menu, then they will not be able to order them. If big films like HARRY POTTER and TRANSOFRMERS were only viewable over at tiny arthouse theaters, they'd do less business. It's a very simple concept. But Hollywood and theater ownerswould rather contribute to the Dumbing Down Of America.

 

 

I would also say that those small movies you've named also make money back, because they're not as expensive to produce. I was just watching an interview with Woody Allen and he said that very thing about his own small films. Every single person I've heard from who has seen MIDNIGHT IN PARIS think it's a good or great movie... it's a damn shame that somewhere along the line, moviegoers became dumbed down to mainly wanting stuff like TRANSFORMERS. 
In a perfect world, the studios would be most concerned about art but they're a business so they have to care about money. If they only put out art house movies, people wouldn't go and see art pictures, they'd just stop going to the movies until a studio decided that they want to make money again and brought back the big dumb blockbuster. There's three art house theaters within reasonable driving distance of me and they're crumbling dumps that are generally pretty empty (at least whenever I go there). Meanwhile, nearly all the multiplexes have carpeting, non-torn apart seats, stadium seating and, most importantly, they are packed with people seeing whatever the new 'big' movie of the week is. I guess it's a pessimistic view but I don't think people have gotten any more dumb. I think they're about as dumb as they've always been and movies are about as good (or bad) as they've always been. I doubt the masses were flocking to the theaters to see Citizen Kane in 1941 but I bet some lackluster movie made alot of money that year. It's only after the fact that the cream rises to the top, the junk is forgotten and the past appears to be better than the present. Michael brought up a good point about the remakes just being another cycle that will eventually burn itself. While this one is longer lived than the nature run amok fad of the 1970's or the early 1980's slasher craze or the Asian ghost kid who meows like a cat garbage of the early 2000's but I do think it's coming to an end soon. If only because they're out of things to remake. Chronologically, they're getting to the point where they'll have to remake The Blair Witch Project or remake the remake of The Haunting if they keep going.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008
>>In a perfect world, the studios would be most concerned about art but they're a business s>>o they have to care about money. If they only put out art house movies, people wouldn't go and see art pictures, they'd just stop going to the movies until a studio decided that they want to make money again and brought back the big dumb blockbuster.>I guess it's a pessimistic view but I don't think people have gotten any more dumb. I think they're about as dumb as they've always been and movies are about as good (or bad) as they've always been.I doubt the masses were flocking to the theaters to see Citizen Kane in 1941 but I bet some lackluster movie made alot of money that year. It's only after the fact that the cream rises to the top, the junk is forgotten and the past appears to be better than the present.Michael brought up a good point about the remakes just being another cycle that will eventually burn itself. While this one is longer lived than the nature run amok fad of the 1970's or the early 1980's slasher craze or the Asian ghost kid who meows like a cat garbage of the early 2000's but I do think it's coming to an end soon. If only because they're out of things to remake. Chronologically, they're getting to the point where they'll have to remake The Blair Witch Project or remake the remake of The Haunting if they keep going
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,425
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Joe Karlosi said:
What did people see in theaters BEFORE there were only big duumb blockbusters offered to them?
People saw their equivalent of those movies. Generally, people want to sit back and be entertained. Most people don't want to see a movie that requires thinking. They just want to have fun. You or me might want more (even I don't mind seeing an entertaining action movie) but I don't think people's desire to see something that they can just have fun with has changed much over the decades.
There's three art house theaters within reasonable driving distance of me and they're crumbling dumps that are generally pretty empty (at least whenever I go there). Meanwhile, nearly all the multiplexes have carpeting, non-torn apart seats, stadium seating and, most importantly, they are packed with people seeing whatever the new 'big' movie of the week is.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008
>> Generally, people want to sit back and be entertained. Most people don't want to see a movie that requires thinking. They just want to have fun. You or me might want more (even I don't mind seeing an entertaining action movie) but I don't think people's desire to see something that they can just have fun with has changed much over the decades.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
Yeah, it could happen. I'd say it'll happen the same time people grow tired of sound and color and start to demand B&W silent films again.


Again, support your art films and skip the blockbusters.

As for movies being dumbed down, I'm pretty sure you could track this back to 1916.

But to keep it more on topic, wouldn't you say Universal dumbed things down with their monsters in the 1940s? Fox took the "high road" with THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL but didn't every other studio dumb things down with stuff like THE COSMIC MAN? Were people being dumbed down when they skipped the lateast Bergman or Kurosawa film and instead went to the drive-in to check out CREATURE FROM THE HAUNTED SEA? People have always enjoyed dumb, loud and obnoxious movies.

With that said, I plan on revisiting the original FN sometime before this remake comes out and I also plan on watching the sequel for the first time. I'm glad the filmmakers kept their original feel by not trying to cash in on the popularity of the original film becoming a hit.
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008
>>Yeah, it could happen. I'd say it'll happen the same time people grow tired of sound and color and start to demand B&W silent films again.Again, support your art films and skip the blockbusters.
 

Michael Elliott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
8,054
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
I'm certain you'll argue until the day silent movies make a comeback but let me ask you something.


1. What were the ages of those folks seeing MIDNIGHT IN PARIS? Would you say the majority were older folks? I know you don't watch too many "art" films but I'd say the majority are older people. Not the rule but just the majority.


2. 12-25 year olds are probably the main group that these movies are trying to pull in. Probably boys are the biggest selling group. What type of movies were you watching when you were in this age group? Were you visiting your local art house or were you watching the dumbed down fluff out at the time? So, let's flashback to when you were a 15-year-old Mr. Karlosi. Would you go see FRIDAY THE 13TH or A TREE OF LIFE?
 

Joe Karlosi

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
6,008
>>I'm certain you'll argue until the day silent movies make a comeback>2. 12-25 year olds are probably the main group that these movies are trying to pull in. Probably boys are the biggest selling group. What type of movies were you watching when you were in this age group? Were you visiting your local art house or were you watching the dumbed down fluff out at the time? So, let's flashback to when you were a 15-year-old Mr. Karlosi. Would you go see FRIDAY THE 13TH or A TREE OF LIFE?
 

Pete York

Supporting Actor
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
610
But you, Joe, as the person arguing for a return to the so-called quality of yesteryear are not the representative film-goer. In the "cultural vegetables" argument that's been floating around the film sites over the past couple of weeks (touched off when one writer said he tried to watch slow, contemplative films like MEEK'S CUTOFF or SOLARIS after friends told him he had to, but just found them boring and was sick of having to act like he wasn't 'getting' them---hmmm, come to think of it, I've heard that refrain before...somewhere), the refrain you hear over and over again is that the overwhelming majority of people say they go to the movies for pure escapist entertainment. They have different goals when going to a movie than you or Michael does. THAT'S what you're 'fighting' here. An ingrained, habitual custom. They are not interested in Werner Herzog or Terrence Malick on nature. Is that wrong?


The old-timers like to recall the glorious pre-JAWS late 60's-early 70's, where young American directors made personal films of relevance. But what did the public go to see? AIRPORT. THE TOWERING INFERNO. THE EXORCIST. LOVE STORY. THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE. Art films?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,519
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top