Frat House Massacre

Frat House Massacre

Set in the late 70s, this gritty and twisted film taps the physical and mental underpinnings of the meaning of the word "brother" in a way reminiscent of the best of late 70s grindhouse and early 80s slashers.

Set in the late 70s, this gritty and twisted film taps the physical and mental underpinnings of the meaning of the word "brother" in a way reminiscent of the best of late 70s grindhouse and early 80s slashers. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Frat House Massacre torrent reviews

Brendan M (us) wrote: A cool conspiracy theory thriller not to be taken too seriously. Makes for a better Saw sequel than any of the Saw sequels.

Todd G (ca) wrote: Charming...quirky, but missing something that I can't quite put my finger on.

Nancy B (it) wrote: Slow, slow, slow! While an interesting premise, it felt like a week had passed before the 92 minutes were up. Dull.

George L (au) wrote: This movie never suffers from any dull moment. Two love stories emerge from different parts of the economic spectrum.

Evan G (mx) wrote: With No Looking Back, Edward Burns decided to take a step back from his usual light comic banter and take a look at the down and out lives of 3 people in a dead end town. The main character being Lauren Holly; which is interesting for Burns considering all of his other films pretty much revolve around a group of guys and the male persona. Although not my favorite Burns flick, this may in fact be one of his most well written. Definitely check it out if you're a fan of Ed like myself.

Amethyst v (ru) wrote: A good period drama about discovery of magnetism as a cure for diseases and the oposition from orthodox physicians.

Brad S (es) wrote: Suoer-cheesy...but I like Caine and has some nice scenery...but can't recommend it. Demi Moore is barely in it. Skip it!

Edith N (es) wrote: A Strange Way of Visualizing It Gwen has this philosophy about war. She believes that you should never go into a war you can't explain to a seven-year-old. Graham asked me to give him the short version of what World War I was about when I was explaining today's feature to him, and I couldn't. I told him that it was impossible. No one can give a short version of what World War I is about. There are, I think, fewer movies about it than any war the US has been involved in after 1812 and before Korea. There may even be more movies about Korea, for all I know. I'd have to look it up. But the point is, I think this is an attempt to render a confusing situation a little more understandable. It's an interesting experiment, certainly, and I really do approve of the attempt. Even if, I must confess, it didn't always work for me. You also have to admit that it's got a great cast, if nothing else. It's a bit hard to explain the plot, obviously. It is a collage of sorts, pieced together from authentic dialogue and musical numbers. However, instead of showing the real horrors of the war, it for the most part puts it into a fantasized, stylized milieu, presenting the war as yet another amusement at Brighton Pier, among other views. Dame Maggie Smith performs a rousing musical number to get boys to enlist. John Mills (Hayley's father) plays Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, selling tickets to the show. Vanessa Redgrave as Sylvia Pankhurst campaigns for an end to the war and votes for women. We get to see the Christmas Truce of 1914, and we see the regret the men feel when they have to go back to war. Dirk Bogarde expresses distaste at those who would deign to serve cider, even in a time of national emergency. And so forth. It's Jane Seymour's first film; she is one of the chorus girls. And one by one, they muddle their way through the war. And one by one, starting with Franz Ferdinand (Wensley Pithey) and his wife (Ruth Kettlewell), they get poppies . . . . It is, of course, impossible to really express the entire war in a single picture. This is true of any war, even something like the Six Days War. It may have been short, but it was the story of many people in many places interacting. World War I was longer and took place over more territory. It would, I think, be hard to tell the story of even a single person over the course of the war in any kind of detail, and telling the story of the war itself, even using a family to do so, is probably impossible as well. After all, how do you cover every front? I guess you could have that one family be the ancestors of Queen Victoria, which would admittedly involve both sides and a half-dozen countries. However, that wouldn't give you much view of the actual fighting, just what happened in the halls of power. Since this story is trying to show both, it of necessity dabbles--some at the top, and some in the trenches. Okay, and it's mostly the British story. We learn a little bit about what's happening to the Russians, but if Gallipoli is mentioned, I missed it. We do get the sudden appearance of the Americans, but I don't think we got the Lusitania. (I confess that it wasn't the easiest for me to keep track of when certain moments were, but the Lusitania is pretty distinctive; I didn't see anything naval through the whole movie.) Mostly what we get is the conflict between the foolish old men at the top, who still dream of cavalry charges, and the poor sods in the trenches, who actually do the fighting and dying. Gas does put in its appearance, but the idea that perhaps war is different here and now than decades ago in Africa or India is not something that occurs to these men. I've often thought that the real reason the Americans were able to clear everything up as quickly, aside from being fresh troops when the Germans and Austro-Hungarians were exhausted, was that we'd had the Civil War and learned lessons from it that Europe had not. This was an ambitious film. Apparently, some people felt it de-emphasized the actual deaths in the war that the source material--a radio play and a stage play--did not, and I think that's a fair enough criticism as far as it goes. I did not come away from it any more aware of the ridiculous waste than I had been before I went in, but I think I'm still more aware than average of the ridiculous waste that was World War I. People don't much remember it, and I think that's in part because it is so awfully difficult to explain what the fighting was about. Several people have also mentioned that the giant lighted sign declaring it to be World War I is an anachronism; it is, however, worth noting that the first reference to it as "the first world war" dates to 1914. What's more, I think there is a cruel irony that we can do without in labeling it "the Great War," even in a historical context. And we all know how well "the War to End All Wars" worked out long term.

D M (au) wrote: A very cheaply made film about a group of United nations astronauts exploring Uranus. Soon after arriving on the planet they realize everything they see is a projection from their own memories, sometimes desirable, other ties terrifying. This leads them to explore further, finding the alien source of these mirages. Interesting storyline, but more acting and direction; too much inept dialog.

John T (fr) wrote: BTTF type vehicld for time travel.Inane dialogue.Plot more difficult to understand than van Damme's accent.