Here you can find both my short reviews, say < 4 paragraphs, and links to those which are blog posts.
In a few instances, I have welcomed guest posts by select friends. If you want to know more about the author of any guest reviews, click the link in each.
YOUR views on my reviews are welcome below. Just be certain to follow the Posting Rules. Spanks a lot.
Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006
Review written July 14, 2019
On p. 182 of Hurtado’s 2006 tome on early Christian manuscripts, their fragments, their studies and origins, he writes (regarding “Other Scribal Features”):
“I emphasize that I intend here merely adequate illustration of the phenomena in question, not an exhaustive listing of early biblical codices in which these features appear.”
Yet for an audience generally knowledgeable about Christian origins or the standards of manuscript studies (paleography) this work is nearly exhaustive, and provides a luxuriously readable — though sometimes bogged down in the exhaustive detail he professes against — study of what we can know about Christian origins based on early manuscripts.
Should anyone try to criticize this work, it would be the concentration on Egyptian manuscripts and fragments at the detriment of other regions. That is only because Hurtado follows the evidence. Egypt’s dry conditions have led to the discovery of thousands of parchment, vellum and papyrus evidences, especially a plethora of fragments and nearly complete codices in the trash heap at Oxyrhynchus. The study is dolled out fairly, not loosing sight of geographic region, however, but taking us into some of the vaulted archives of early Christianity, allowing us know the jargon and even get a cursory feel for methods of research.
He is here not even concerned much with the earliest of the earliest of the fragments of early Christianity, only with what the mss. and fragments of the first 4 centuries of the CE can tell us about Christians, how they worshiped and used the texts, and about Christianity itself and how it communicated across ideas and distances. Nowhere does he even mention P52 as the earliest known fragment (of John). With calm and evenhanded conveyance of his subject, he adeptly avoids providing bullets to those uber-literary Bible Thumpers who point to P52 as somehow providing proof of the entire Biblical canon. At times I get the feel he is disappointed in these literalists, but thankfully avoids entering the fray.
Chapter 3 is the most interesting. It’s titled “The Nomina Sacra”, a standard in (mostly Anc. Greek) mss. to abbreviate oft-repeating or sacred names/words. Commonly, most people in the Christian-dominated world recognize the Chi-Rho, an X bisecting the vertical stroke of a tall P. Though it is the most recognizable christogram today, it is not the earliest. Hurtado covers an interesting hypothesis that the earliest is actually a combination of a contraction and gematria, using a line over 2 or more Greek letters to make a number, in this case one with reflections back to numbers and words in Jewish writings, emphasizing the Jewishness of early Christianity. He fails, thankfully, to make any final decisions on such points throughout, but studiously offers arguments and counterarguments in a very democratic and yet scholarly manner, even providing alternative arguments, such as their use as visual cues used in finding sections of long mss., or use in devotion.
Throughout he has a running series of footnotes (even the Introduction has 30) where he provides both standard references and amazingly ADHD-scale details on exceedingly minor arguable points and fascinating provisos (I intimate this in a good way). There’s 551 footnotes and they, alone, provide incredibly detailed running narratives in each chapter. You will also find pie charts and bar graphs, an Appendix called “Christian Literary Texts in Manuscripts of the Second and Third Centuries”, and another: “Photographic Plates of Selected Manuscripts”. Included, also, we have suggestions for further readings, select online resources, and a very thorough small-print bibliography 15 pages long (my heart thumps at such things).
If you are an average Christian (or otherwise curious) reader without a standard level of background knowledge relating to the language of manuscript studies, this may be a bit of a difficult read. Should you already know some of the lingo, or you have the time, patience and resources to stop and expand your knowledge every time an unknown or unfamiliar concept comes up, then I can hopeful find this fine book next to Brent Nongbri’s “God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts” (Yale University Press, 2018) side by side in your exegetical library.
Grand Central Publishing, 2007
Review written June 16, 2019
Reinventing the vampire novel may not have been Octavia Butler’s intention, yet she created a very believable (as far a vampires go) blend of bloodsucker fiction with her last standalone novel, Fledgling (2005, Seven Stories Press). In this work, the vampires — collectively called Ina — have their own language, scripts and culture. And I’m sorry to disappoint you, these vamps cannot turn humans into Creatures of the Night. There is, however, an interesting symbiotic relationship between Earth’s 2 main species, Ina and human; one which increases the believability of the basic storyline, and still makes me wish I knew an Ina.
The storytelling is clear, and her writing style is sparse, securing only a minimum of words which allow the reader to visualize our protagonists’ environs and motivations, while giving us a first person narrative that is engaging and empathic. Shori is a black vampire, and without giving much away, that’s not her only engaging characteristic. Shori has a defendable story which begins with weakness and ends up with strength, while molding the invented characteristics of her bloodsucking lifestyle and its maintenance into a well thought narrative. This carries us well through the first 80% of the story before it begins focusing on a single event for the last several chapters. In a few occasions, the sparse writing with multiple characters becomes both confused and confusing. At the end of one chapter the writing lacks specifics on which humans are leaving a compound, but I pictured two characters leaving for a few days which were also the 2 companion characters of Shori at the beginning of the next chapter. The 2 very same humans at that point both were and were not involved in the beginning of that next chapter. I tried to assuage my confusion by going back to read the departure scene, and the unspecificity due to the sparsely worded writing style kept me confused.
The only major disappointment here is from the last several chapters, where there is a large Council of Judgment called to address the murders which happened to Shori’s family. Here, the suspicions molded through the first part of the book are given solidification during the 3 days of the Council meeting. With no surprises whatsoever in the last several chapters, the ending leaves us with a dry taste, wishing for, wanting for, any hint of an inventive twist, instead of the story we’ve been building up playing out exactly as we suspect.
Although enjoyable and inventive, this cannot get my highest recommendation; though with a 3.75 out of 5, I hope interested readers will try this genre bending tome.
Review written May 30, 2019
I cannot remember ever having to almost force myself through another non-fiction in order to gleam a few nuggets of wisdom. If we were mining for gold, this is not a vein of desire.
Timothy Insoll does indeed have a replete grasp of the topic. His contributions to Archaeology and World Religion reflected a much more accessible approach to the material, where the non-specialist could understand and gain valuable insight from the material. I feel confident in giving this criticism about this work, as it is only in the final chapter the direct implication that this work is written for degree-bearing archaeologists is given. Otherwise, everything else assumes it is for the knowledgeable non-specialist.
Despite this, there are indeed nuggets of wisdom, and although we are here discussing only 155 pages of wisdom, it is indeed a dense mine for gathering those nuggets. With a valuable bibliography, I will happily contribute 3 out of 5 stars in Amazon’s rating; but 3.5 if given the option. My suggestion is to read the awesome Prologue, Chapter 1 and the last 2 chapters. Then pick up and salivate over the erudite wisdom of Michael Willis’ The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the Establishment of the Gods.
Oxford University Press; New Ed edition (June 15, 2000)
Review written April 26, 2017
In the past 20 years I can hardly think of a tome I was so disappointed with as Beard and Henderson’s Classics: A Very Short Introduction. If by “Classics” they mean Classical Studies (and they do, despite never using that commonly-accepted term in this volume), a reader can leave the volume not really knowing the scope and meaning of the term. It’s prosaic touching of the subjects is quite ethereal, never really cutting into the meat, exposing the marrow of the subject. Despite bringing up good subjects in the later chapters, we are hardly given an overarching definition, and certainly not a 30,000 foot view.
Mary Beard is a first rate Classicist, so this is surprising. Her SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome* approaches brilliance. John Henderson, a fellow of Classics at King’s College, is also an art historian, and co-editor of the Oxford Dictionary of Art. They begin by giving us a POV walk into the British Museum, ending up in the room displays the frieze from the Temple of Apollo at Bassae, Arcadia. Within the next several chapters, they do touch upon the wrongdoings and distractions purposefully foisted upon the inhabitants of the (at the time) semi-barren Arcadia, and also — in good fashion — do well in illustrating (in words and sketches) the problems museum officials had in determining which order the independently-sculpted pieces were to be reassembled. It is also properly noted that the friezes breed controversy to this day, not only for the deceptions surrounding their smuggling from Greece, but the order in which the panels should be re-arranged (the smuggler/archeologists didn’t take proper notes on the disassembly).
Yet these facts are given long treatment in a work which apparently is supposed to give “A Very Short Introduction” to what Classical Studies IS. No discussion of the pre-Classical Mediterranean Greek, including the Mycenaean and Minoan cultures, and their brilliance. The Linear B script, it’s semi-transference into later Greek, the main forms of Classical Greek, then their eventual influence on the Etruscan/Phoenician evolution of Latin; these items are nowhere even touched upon. No mention, even, of Magna Gracae. Most of the brilliant minds of Greece and Rome are not mentioned; religion and myth, inventions and social institutions, great and crooked leaders, all are glossed over with sometimes barely a mention. The subject’s role in the teaching of the humanities, the philosophy and everyday life in the Classical world are never even mentioned. The term “Greco-Roman World”, which is even mentioned in a 6th grade history book used in Texas, is within this introduction not used one single time. Of the c. 28 standard sub-subjects of Classical Studies (a.k.a. Classics), only about a dozen are touched upon here.
Lacking in scope and touching on humanities with a firecracker against an H-bomb, I cannot recommend, sadly, this ‘Very Short Introduction’.
*SPQR refers to the Latin term for The Senate and People of Rome, a phrase used by Livy and Cicero.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers; Expanded ed. edition (April 28, 2007)
Short single-volume treatise on Progressive values
Review written March 07, 2017
To me, this book has a rare unique feature: it is on the rare list of two different ratings. It 1) has a rating of 5 stars out of 4, and 2) is one of the few books I would recommend to each and every American.
If one single tome explains the reasons behind what Bill O’Reilly pejoratively calls the “SPs”, the Secular Progressives, this is it.
A must read.
Older & Archived Reads
The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science
Mariner Books; 2008
Well-conceived non-illustrated tour of essential science for the literate and curious
Review written February 26, 2011
It is the height of misfortune that most of the people — young, especially — who would be most enlightened by this book will pass it by during their casual romp through Barnes & Noble. This tome is composed of words only, and lacks even a single illustration. What it lacks in illustration is balanced by insightful writing, creating crafted visuals illustrating in the mind’s eye the themes explored. For someone wanting a fun romp through the basics, I will call this indispensable.
Dir: Todd Phillips
Reviewed Oct 3, 2019
JOKER – profiling a listless plunge into delirium – starting at the halfway point
ONLY A TINY SPOILER AHEAD
Known to get into his roles, Joaquin Phoenix states he lost 52 pounds (23.5 kg) in anticipation of his role as Arthur Fleck, a dis-associative outcast comedian wannabe, who lives with and bathes his mother. He is socially awkward and ever slipping down the drainpipe of delusional dementia. As we meet him, he’s already stepping off that curb.
Phoenix is perfect here, as the delusional misfit dances awkwardly, yet in his mind gracefully, and whose injuries become a reflection of the society he disdains more with each passing painful day. Todd Philips’ direction is crafted and visually disturbing at times, while the pace is slow and measured, a perfect accompaniment to Fleck’s descent.
Yet by the end, I would have expected just a bit more . . . substance. Though the eventual arrest of fleck and his injured rescue from the back of a police vehicle from a clown-mask clad throng of rioters shows Joker has become a revered icon of revenge and hatred, I visualized in my mind where the movie would go, taking things to a new level, symbolizing the wrongness of the oppressive Gotham in its lesser days, showing us Joker’s attachment to the movement he unwillingly created.
Yet we are given a bit more, though it’s not . . . again, I struggle for a word . . . significant. Significance. Substance. Lacking these in the end are the only 2 minor letdowns, yet getting there is a near stunning panoply of character and change.
Dir: Michael Engler
Reviewed Sept 22, 2019
WARNING: NOTHING BUT SPOILERS AHEAD
There are few surprises in the main takeways from “Downton Abbey; The Motion Picture” (snicker). Carson is called in to save the day. Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham, and Isobel, Lady Merton, have verbal fisticuffs. There are questions of legitimacy and inheritance. Lady Edith Crawley has a fantastic body. And in typical fashion of 1927 England, Barrow discovers there is such a thing as a men-only club and is promptly arrested.
Oh, and the King and Queen will be staying during their visit to the region.
Beautifully photographed and lavishly set with stunning detail, just like the series, most of the movie involves itself with petty comeuppances and emotional hyperbole: this butler worrying why the kitchen assistant hasn’t set a date for their wedding, and minor household accessories go missing. Gee, I wonder if these inconveniences will work themselves out in the end. Oh, and Maggie Smith’s Violet Crawley is getting so old she regales her coquetries with stories about the time she met Archimedes.
Yet DA to me both doesn’t and does feel like the show itself, of which I’ve seen the entire run. I would add it doesn’t feel the same without Lily James’ Lady Rose MacClare, who may have been mentioned somewhere, but with the stumpy English accents, some details become muddled; she may have been mentioned, as her role by the end of the series, which ends only slightly before the events here, isn’t minor. Maybe she did “Yesterday” (see review elsewhere on this page) instead of the same-old same-old.
Want to know what this film is? Just watch any 2 episodes of the series, and you will be treated to the same interesting and mildly mellow fare. Nothing here earns a $ 12 admission price. My recommendation is to see it; when you can turn on the subtitles.
Dir: Andre Ovredal
Reviewed Aug 16, 2019
NO SPOILERS AHEAD
The film version of Alvin Schwartzs’ YA tome “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark”, with the imprimateur of horror and fantasy legend Guillermo del Toro, looked like a certain hit. Well, since there’s no accounting for taste, at least a good flick to begin the early Halloween season.
Mediocrity, however, is a beast which needs beating back despite appearances. In filmdom, that beast manifests itself in lazy storytelling, unnecessary subplots, weak development and tired tropes. Here, we have a mild mix of most of these problems, yet none are overwhelming enough to turn it into a crudfest.
Rural small town local yokels in Pennsylvania are predictably 1) a female goth, 2) a boy passing through who like the goth, 3) a bully, and 4) the town cop. Now given this you should not be surprised by this, as it is not too unpredictable to figure out who will be the first to get killed, by a scarecrow he beats with a bat at every convenience, which slowly terrorizes the bully on — another predictability — Halloween night.
That most terrifying of all nights is also when our goth and the out of towner visit an otherwise unfindable cellar in the town’s menacing abandoned manse. Within, she steals a journal of the woman who was sheltered within almost her entire life. Goth girl gets home, and stories start writing themselves in the diary; stories which become true as they are being written.
Though the unfolding stories, there are a few highlights. The Jangly Man monster is a collection of body parts which fall from a fireplace and assemble themselves in what is the coolest part of the movie. Oh, and let’s not forget the young actors, most especially, the lovely Zoe Colletti as the goth girl, who are — like the young actors in IT: PART 1: THE LOOSERS CLUB — the best part of the movie. I see several careers blooming.
Yes, I know it’s based on a YA novel, but this horror movie is less scary than an old episode of Scooby Doo. If you have an 11 year old to occupy with mindnumbing media, place them in front of this snoozefest.
Dir: Quentin Tarantino
Reviewed Jul 26, 2019
NO SPOILERS AHEAD
At the beginning of Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS [sic], Standartenführer Hans Landa, in full military regalia, knocks on the door of a small, wooden home in the French countryside. The homeowner is hiding Jews from capture by the SS, and both characters know it. The terse discussion between the characters played on for several minutes with Landa, full of his own ambition and egotism, delivering his side of the parlay slightly overacted, attempting to intimidate the dairy farmer and cajole a confession or find a flaw in the homeowner’s narrative. Landa played with the homeowner, and the camera, that there’s more behind the narrative. The tension builds to a tight wind before being released in a scene which is only slightly Tarantino-esque, making you want for more, and setting the pace for the rest of the film. The scene helped secure actor Christoph Waltz the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor and a Golden Globe, the Best Actor statuette at Cannes, and more.
The delicate interplay between characters, usually with high-strung tension leveled with humor, and interspersed with both expected and unexpected violence, is a hallmark of Quentin Tarantino’s filmography, both as director and writer. He spent 2 movies getting to the well-played scene where Uma Thurman actually does KILL BILL. But throughout, along with his attention to detail and hallmark non-linear style, have made for expectations which made his audience – me included – excited for his latest effort, ONCE UPON A TIME IN … HOLLYWOOD [again, sic].
This time, drop the über-violence, non-linear timeline, and character interplays wound so tight, and we have this film. OUAT…IH has the detail, certainly, along with (arguably) far too many long, drawn out moments, great dialogue and maybe not much else. Oh, except an alternative take on a tragedy that played out in the Hollywood Hills in the summer of 1969. It is an alternative I think we all wish were reality.
The first half hour contains just ridiculously long dialogues without the panache, unrequited tautness or even the brilliance we’ve come to expect. As more characters arrive on the scene and become developed, we pick up speed a bit, but even I, who loves long movies so much he had a long movie database attached to his vampire movie Website (maybe I’ll put them up again one day). Yet even I will say this one needs to be gutted; about 30 minutes of useless micro-detail and extended dialogue scenes which don’t contribute to the film need to go, along with several too-long useless shots, IMHO.
There are great performances here. The two main leads, Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, have great, believable chemistry together. But the outstanding performance here is from Julia Butters, who at 10 years of age was called by Esquire the films’ “Breakout Star”1. Yet at the end we are left with the feeling of having spent 161 minutes seeing crafted dialogue, well-shot SOCAL scenery and a great soundtrack with little other payoff. The end, which is only partially violent compared to other QT entries, is satisfying, and the film’s only release. Yet after it, asking about the entire film’s drawn out timing, I asked myself “That’s it?”
I would say, this flick is better than THE HATEFUL EIGHT, but far from the brilliance of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, PULP FICTION, RESERVOIR DOGS or even TRUE ROMANCE (which Tarantino wrote but was directed by Tony Scott, RIP). Since we are all Tarantino fans (aren’t we?) do see the movie. But be sure your expectations are set down a notch.
- https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a28510307/julia-butters-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-child-actress-interview-leonardo-dicaprio-scene/ ↵
Dir: Danny Boyle
Reviewed Jun 29, 2019
I remember that shocking Monday in December.
I was 15 years of age and came home, turned on The Riff ra-da-dio, set down my homework assignments and started going through my mail. It was a half-day at my high school, and I was joyous.
Like any situation in radio or television advertising, you know something is amiss when an advertisement, the money source to pay the bills, is interrupted. This day was no ordinary day, and the announcement from one of WRIF’s dour sounding rock and roll DJs was a slap in the face to all peace-love-and-happiness-loving people. John Lennon was dead. Not by natural causes, or for the reasons narrow minds would naturally pounce on — drugs — but by a handgun-wielding murderer who apparently killed John for no known reason. (As an aside, with several classmates the next day in tears, I stated it was probably a Republican who committed the crime, and I was right.)
That murder — of the artist, activist, author, and ostensibly most prolific musician of The Beatles — changed me. I dropped to my knees and wondered why anyone would kill a man so dedicated to peace, showcasing the necessity for that position, becoming an embodiment of the need for the very advocacy for which he stood — and unwittingly gave his life — to advance. I became more cynical after his murder, more dedicated to the values Lennon represented, more careful in my ready acceptance of others; colder. I became more sensitive to ideas of hatred, possibly even more dichotomous in my worldwide outlook.
The musical genius of the super-super-duper group The Beatles and their legacy is the focus of the movie “Yesterday” (which I saw yesterday). Himesh Patel plays Jack Malik, a frustrated musician who finally gives up on his dreams of making it big with far too many failures behind him. Fans of BBC soap operas my recall Patel’s decade-long role in ‘EastEnders’ (I’m more of a ‘Coronation Street’ guy myself), so he has the acting chops to execute the role well, believably shifting between emotions of musical elation to guilt-riddled angst at his deceptions.
Catapulted into a world where only he remembers the musical legacy of The Beatles, his character realizes he knows a crapload of music he can claim as his own. Despite the absolute improbability of any worldwide switchover where all electricity goes out across the globe (including bus headlights), where The Beatles, Coca-Cola and Harry Potter never existed, director Danny Boyle (“Trainspotting”) and screenwriter Richard Curtis (“Bridget Jones’s Diary”) place just the right amount of crazy cool scripting gadgets to smooth the way through the improbabilities (I’m tempted to end this sentence with “and into our hearts”, but I won’t).
Thankfully, the film sticks to its guns, not falling for the cheap scripting shortcut used in “Jacob’s Ladder”, “Donnie Darko” and “Sucker Punch”. That is what I expected, and thankfully, this film delivers more, while still having enough plot holes to drive a planet through.
If you are a fan of The Beatles, even of silly rom-coms despite knowing the plot, see “Yesterday” today, maybe even tomorrow. I give 7.5 stars out of 10. That’s actually high for me, so also a recommendation.
That terrible day in 1980 nearly brought tears to my eyes in the third reel. I wondered what kind of world I would prefer to live in. Would I want what I have? A world with the Fab Four, or the one shown to us here?
I’m not sorry, John, to say I’m glad you met Paul.
BIRD BOX (2018-Netflix Original)
Dir: Susanne Bier
Reviewed Jan 16, 2018
The hype is not worth the type.
THE VOID (2016)
Dir: Steven Kostanski, Jeremy Gillespie
Reviewed Oct. 6, 20186
With several recent YouTube videos recommending this title, with no apprehension I checked this lovely movie out last night. And one of these days, I’ll finish writing this review.
Dir: Ruben Fleischer
Reviewed Oct 4, 2018
Several recent Marvel franchise films recently have been incredibly good. Namely, Black Panther (which surprised nobody when it won Best Picture at the Oscars), Avengers: Infinity Wars (which I actually thought was better . .) and … This flick does not keep up to those standards.
Not having read the Venom comic, maybe I approached this movie with expectations it will give me the adventure, story and compassion I need to appreciate the arc. Eventually it does this in bite-sized segments, but only in the latter half. During this later half, the character, now well developed, begins to show his true self, and we realize the Venom creature inhabits a perfect host for its personality, with an appealing blend of humor and smart, believable quips, and arguments between the creature and the person (played exceptionally well by …).
# 33 #
SUPERMAN V. BATMAN: THE DAWN OF JUSTICE (2016)
Dir: Zack Snyder
Reviewed Mar 26, 2016
See my complete review blog post here . . .
Dir: David Gordon Greene
Reviewed Oct 19, 2018
A very serious disappointment with adolescent-level writing, an unbelievable plot twist, and details that make no sense. Mike Meyers may be dead, again (JL Curtis chopped his head off in H20 … so…I just don’t get it!), but the worst news about this flick is there will most likely be a sequel.
Older & Archived Reviews
The Case for Christ (2019)
Dir: Jon Gunn
Reviewed Dec 12, 2018
Unthinking credulity has a name, and it is “The Case for Christ”. Next time I want to waste time, I’d rather see “Plan 9 From Outer Space” or “This Darkness”.
If you already believe if the plethora of ideas which come with a blind obedience to this ancient superstition, more power to you — this will only serve to reinforce your ideas.
If you have a baloney detection kit filtering garbage, you will loose weight via regurgitation.
OM SHANTI OM (2007)
Dir: Farrah Kahn
Not for everyone, but an incredible movie for the true Bollywood buff
Review written January 4, 2013
Replete with inside jokes, self-loathing Bollywood mocking of all-too-common motifs and walk-on appearances by nearly 2 dozen Indian cinema stars, well, that should be enough. Not to mention Deepika Padukone, quite possibly the most exquisitely lovely woman on the planet (even my wife calls her “impossibly beautiful”). All this, and a great, involved plot, (mostly) razor-sharp directing from Farrah Khan (no relation to Shah Rukh Khan) and editing, this nearly 3-hour feast takes you through 2 lives lived for one idea. Incredible, sweeping, and ultimately, creepy, as in sending shivers down the spine in a plot twist that will have you going back for more.
Yes, just a touch campy; yes, the big Bollywood production numbers are both slightly numerous and long, but are interwoven with the story, if only marginally.
A friend of mine who wanted to know more about Indian cinema borrowed “3 Idiots” first, and will now check out this long, dramatic jewel. Then, who knows … “Sholay” and “Jodhaa Akbar”. Eventually, “Mother India”?
SUICIDE SQUAD (2016)
Dir: David Ayer
See my complete review blog post here . . .
Vampire Movie Reviews
Yes, I have an affinity for vampire movies. Here are just some reviews. Each will open with a new tab.
Addiction, The (1995)
Angel of the Night (Nattens Engel) (1998)
Ankle Biters (2002)
Razor Blade Smile (1998)