DVD Purchases and Rentals

[Splatterscribe]

Finally got around to watching The Town that Dreaded Sundown (thanks again Splatt)

God damn this movie is atrocious. Starts off good enough with a documentary feel to it, similar to TCM. The voice of the guy narrating is pretty cool. But this movie is fucking boring to no end. First "attack" was pretty well shot and is borderline creepy. Then nothing really happens.

Town of 40,000.......  TWO people get attacked. Not KILLED.....attacked. All of a sudden the entire town is shook, closing up businesses early, peeking out their blinds and shit. Give me a break. I don't care if it is 1945...... 40,000 people, shit is going to go down on a daily basis. Freak out a little more why don't you. At the end of the movie, how many people got killed? 4? None of which were really shown, except for a stupid fucking kill that included a trumpet with a knife attached to it. Ridiculous. The ending was pretty cool I guess.

Now as to the townspeople freaking out..let's walk through this:  There was the opening attack where the Phantom Killer subdues and viciously mauls two people who he forces out of a moving car,  then there's the couple the cop finds dead in the middle of nowhere, then the trumpet scene..and THEN the killer breaks into someone's house  one night, kills her husband while he reads the paper and follows up by shooting her in the face. And all of this ends up linked to the same person. If that shit happened in my town today,  I'd be alarmed, never mind that this all happened in 1946, in a tight knit community where events like this were not a part of everyday life.

but they started freaking out way before half that shit happened, man......   he only makes one appearance on screen before people started shittin themselves.

This goes back to the point of the time and place. You can't regard their reaction judging by a barometer of how people would react today..this was just as WWII was winding down and these sort of things didn't happen on a regular basis..not with that level of brutality.. And as I recall, while they take precautions early on the film after the opening attack, the real fear doesn't manifest itself until after the first double murder, where the cop finds the car out on the back road in the rainstorm.  At that point, I think it's very plausible that a quiet ,close knit community in mid 1940's Midwestern America would suffer a wave of panic and dread.


And BK ,to answer your query about King and the Shining..from everything I've read or heard him say, it has to do with how much of the book Kubrik left out. The director essentially stripped the story down..no topiary animals, no analogous  relationship between the intensity of Jack's possession by the evil in the hotel and the boiler's unchecked pressure..lots of details and depth were excised. King was also pissed at the complete reworking of the Wendy character..Shelly Duvall was not only miscast physically, her performance didn't capture any of the inherent strength the character possessed in  the novel. Rebecca DeMornay definitely got it right in the miniseries.

I am so conflicted about that movie. As an example of horror cinema,  I think Kubrik's film works extremely well (specifically when it touches upon the themes of isolation and alcoholism).  As a King adaptation, I have to agree with the author that it's not up to par. The Shining is my favorite of his novels and, as a fan, I was disappointed at the suprising number of differences between the film and the source material. Plus the ending of the book was better.

Finally..here's a terrific quote by King himself concerning Kubrik's film:

"Parts of the film are chilling, charged with a relentlessly claustrophobic terror, but others fall flat. Not that religion has to be involved in horror, but a visceral skeptic such as Kubrick just couldn't grasp the sheer inhuman evil of The Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: because he couldn't believe, he couldn't make the film believable to others. What's basically wrong with Kubrick's version of The Shining is that it's a film by a man who thinks too much and feels too little; and that's why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should."

[BadKitty]

And BK ,to answer your query about King and the Shining..from everything I've read or heard him say, it has to do with how much of the book Kubrik left out. The director essentially stripped the story down..no topiary animals, no analogous  relationship between the intensity of Jack's possession by the evil in the hotel and the boiler's unchecked pressure..lots of details and depth were excised. King was also pissed at the complete reworking of the Wendy character..Shelly Duvall was not only miscast physically, her performance didn't capture any of the inherent strength the character possessed in  the novel. Rebecca DeMornay definitely got it right in the miniseries.

I am so conflicted about that movie. As an example of horror cinema,  I think Kubrik's film works extremely well (specifically when it touches upon the themes of isolation and alcoholism).  As a King adaptation, I have to agree with the author that it's not up to par. The Shining is my favorite of his novels and, as a fan, I was disappointed at the suprising number of differences between the film and the source material. Plus the ending of the book was better.

Finally..here's a terrific quote by King himself concerning Kubrik's film:

"Parts of the film are chilling, charged with a relentlessly claustrophobic terror, but others fall flat. Not that religion has to be involved in horror, but a visceral skeptic such as Kubrick just couldn't grasp the sheer inhuman evil of The Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: because he couldn't believe, he couldn't make the film believable to others. What's basically wrong with Kubrick's version of The Shining is that it's a film by a man who thinks too much and feels too little; and that's why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should."

I guess I've just never understood judging adaptations on much of anything other than their own merit.  Kubrick totally bastardized a lot of the book.  But, so what?  While I think the book was great, as a stand-alone work, I think Kubrick's film was probably better.  Not because it was so different, or in spite of it, just on its own terms.  But if I didn't think it was better, I probably still wouldn't judge it by comparison to the book (unless it had taken something that really, really should have worked and just effed it up out of sheer stupidity - e.g.: John Carpenter's Vampires.)  Very few books make the translation to film well by staying true to the book - Rosemary's Baby and Hellraiser are two of the only ones that spring to mind.  I think adaptations do better when they go farther off the reservation - it's a totally different medium, and its suited to telling stories in different ways. And sometimes just different stories.   

I suppose I do get how the story was fundamentally thematically changed, which I guess would piss me off if I'd written the original and thought it was just fine as it was, thank you very much.  But then I remember things like Starship Troopers, which was totally different than the book in plot and tone and character (and just about every other way), but was actually about exactly the same ultimate subject - basically comparative PPE - and riffing on it from the same point of view (but hilariously funny, rather than "Boys Own Adventure") and I think it was ultimately one of the most faithful adaptations of a book I've seen in a while. I'd wager Heinlein would not have approved. 

Or maybe I just sympathize with Kubrick.  I see no reason why the supernatural is somehow more evil than merely "domestic" horror.  Nor do I buy that finding horror in human relationships, rather than blaming mysterious unseen forces, implies that you feel too little. 

[Splatterscribe]

I guess I've just never understood judging adaptations on much of anything other than their own merit.  Kubrick totally bastardized a lot of the book.  But, so what?  While I think the book was great, as a stand-alone work, I think Kubrick's film was probably better.  Not because it was so different, or in spite of it, just on its own terms.  But if I didn't think it was better, I probably still wouldn't judge it by comparison to the book (unless it had taken something that really, really should have worked and just effed it up out of sheer stupidity - e.g.: John Carpenter's Vampires.)  Very few books make the translation to film well by staying true to the book - Rosemary's Baby and Hellraiser are two of the only ones that spring to mind.  I think adaptations do better when they go farther off the reservation - it's a totally different medium, and its suited to telling stories in different ways. And sometimes just different stories. 

It depends upon the material in question. Sometimes the changes are a wise decision. An example I would cite would be JAWS, which was a solid, gripping novel by Peter Benchley made into an even better film.  But adversely, sometimes the changes are too vast and the qualities which made the book such a great story are lost in the new interpretation.

My biggest issue with Kubrik's film is that he made the changes to the detriment of the material. Keeping in mind that this is nothing more than my own critical viewpoint , I think  the 1980 version of The Shining is often extremely effective on a superficial level. It has mood, it's extremely well photographed, the music is eerie and the last act rampage is scary. All of it works aesthetically and from that perspective I applaud the film.
However Nicholson's Jack Torrance is about as two dimensional a character as you can get. Seriously, he's never sympathetic or likeable in the film. In fact, because of the way Nicholson portrays the character, he  comes off as being halfway out the door to insane within the first few scenes of the movie.  One of the most important aspects of the novel was that Jack's possession is gradual. He begins as a man with problems who is desperately attempting to put his life back together after making some monumental mistakes. He's flawed, but he's still sympathetic and he clearly loves his family. None of that translated particularly in Kubrik's film.

And that opens the door on the Wendy character..casting Duvall and writing the character as a sniveling , whimpering mess completely defeated the entire point behind the character in the novel. Here was a very strong, intelligent woman making a monumental effort to keep her family together. One of the most horrifying aspects of the novel is that -due to the power evil forces haunting the hotel exert over her husband- Wendy is eventually unable to save that family and is fortunate to even get out with her son  at the end.

In the 1980 film,however , we're presented with a weak willed woman consistently dominated by her off putting husband who finally musters enough survival instinct to fight back in the third act.  Taking away Wendy's dignity and emotional power makes it difficult to empathize with her when the supernatural begins to intrude because she's such a mess in that flick that I never felt a connection to her. I mean holy cow.. even the scene where she knocks Jack out with the bat plays out in such a way where it has more to do with him lunging at her at an inopportune moment and less to do with her seriously defending herself. If Kubrik wanted to make some sort of statement about domestic violence ,fine. Pick a different project. But this was supposed to be the big screen adaptation of Stephen Kings  The Shining, not a Lifetime original movie.   I disgaree with you BK..I don't think the film was at all better.  I think it works very well as a horror film in terms of the surface-level  conventions of the genre,but as a character study it's  a botched job. . I feel the novel and the miniseries both work better as supernatural horror stories that ultimately cut  deeper.

[traumamama]

I guess I've just never understood judging adaptations on much of anything other than their own merit.  Kubrick totally bastardized a lot of the book.  But, so what?  While I think the book was great, as a stand-alone work, I think Kubrick's film was probably better.  Not because it was so different, or in spite of it, just on its own terms.  But if I didn't think it was better, I probably still wouldn't judge it by comparison to the book (unless it had taken something that really, really should have worked and just effed it up out of sheer stupidity - e.g.: John Carpenter's Vampires.)  Very few books make the translation to film well by staying true to the book - Rosemary's Baby and Hellraiser are two of the only ones that spring to mind.  I think adaptations do better when they go farther off the reservation - it's a totally different medium, and its suited to telling stories in different ways. And sometimes just different stories. 

Hey Splat, I love it when you explain your opinion on things, they're always very well thought out and inciteful.  You just convinced me to put the miniseries on my Netflix.  Thanks!

It depends upon the material in question. Sometimes the changes are a wise decision. An example I would cite would be JAWS, which was a solid, gripping novel by Peter Benchley made into an even better film.  But adversely, sometimes the changes are too vast and the qualities which made the book such a great story are lost in the new interpretation.

My biggest issue with Kubrik's film is that he made the changes to the detriment of the material. Keeping in mind that this is nothing more than my own critical viewpoint , I think  the 1980 version of The Shining is often extremely effective on a superficial level. It has mood, it's extremely well photographed, the music is eerie and the last act rampage is scary. All of it works aesthetically and from that perspective I applaud the film.
However Nicholson's Jack Torrance is about as two dimensional a character as you can get. Seriously, he's never sympathetic or likeable in the film. In fact, because of the way Nicholson portrays the character, he  comes off as being halfway out the door to insane within the first few scenes of the movie.  One of the most important aspects of the novel was that Jack's possession is gradual. He begins as a man with problems who is desperately attempting to put his life back together after making some monumental mistakes. He's flawed, but he's still sympathetic and he clearly loves his family. None of that translated particularly in Kubrik's film.

And that opens the door on the Wendy character..casting Duvall and writing the character as a sniveling , whimpering mess completely defeated the entire point behind the character in the novel. Here was a very strong, intelligent woman making a monumental effort to keep her family together. One of the most horrifying aspects of the novel is that -due to the power evil forces haunting the hotel exert over her husband- Wendy is eventually unable to save that family and is fortunate to even get out with her son  at the end.

In the 1980 film,however , we're presented with a weak willed woman consistently dominated by her off putting husband who finally musters enough survival instinct to fight back in the third act.  Taking away Wendy's dignity and emotional power makes it difficult to empathize with her when the supernatural begins to intrude because she's such a mess in that flick that I never felt a connection to her. I mean holy cow.. even the scene where she knocks Jack out with the bat plays out in such a way where it has more to do with him lunging at her at an inopportune moment and less to do with her seriously defending herself. If Kubrik wanted to make some sort of statement about domestic violence ,fine. Pick a different project. But this was supposed to be the big screen adaptation of Stephen Kings  The Shining, not a Lifetime original movie.   I disgaree with you BK..I don't think the film was at all better.  I think it works very well as a horror film in terms of the surface-level  conventions of the genre,but as a character study it's  a botched job. . I feel the novel and the miniseries both work better as supernatural horror stories that ultimately cut  deeper.

[GiveMeGore]

Got around to watching Creation the other day. Aside from the slow pace (I knew what I was getting into) and the fact this is a film heavy in dialog as opposed to action (again, realized it beforehand) aside from that, this film is beautiful. The cinematography right off the bat with the beach scene was breathtaking. I was absolutely wide eyed for most of the duration......it was pretty much a manifestation of the reading I've indulged in over the past few years. The acting was top notch........emotional....... incredibly deep.....thought provoking and they did a wonderful job of not being bias with the subject matter at all. I also got quite a few laughs from several scenes with the dialog coming from one of the atheist characters surrounding Darwin. I believe he referred to God as redundant as one point, with the british accent....had me rolling. Darwin has several indepth conversations with friends on both sides of the fence, daughter, wife, priest..... all of which were incredible believable and wonderfully put for the most part from both sides. Great camera work, symbolism..... just an overall terrific film.

The special features also has several mini documentaries one inparticular had 3 different scientists.....1 being a hardcore atheist and the other 2 were Christians who believe in Darwins theory as well as a creator. Great stuff. Much better than what you see on the history channel or something.... 

It was either the beggining or end of the film, I can't recall.....but across the screen it read "The Theory of Evolution is the greatest idea ever thought"    Loved it and couldnt agree more.

[Splatterscribe]

Recently picked up The Zombie Diaries and Rain of Fire really cheap at Best Buy.

Rain of Fire I had seen prior to this (under one of it's original alternate titles Holocaust 2000). It's basically an Italian made Omen knock off with Kirk Douglas as a industrialist who slowly realizes that his proposed nuclear power plant is destined to usher in the Apocalypse, allowing the anti-christ to rule the world.  Not exactly original,  but it's fairly inventive and relatively creepy, with a great score by Ennio Morricone. There are also some decent "creative death" sequences, the standout being a moment wherein someone has the top half of his head lopped off by a helicopter blade. One scene which really  creeped me out was when a scientist is literally swallowed by the sea. One moment Douglas is talking to this poor bastard and suddenly the tide starts rolling in faster than it should. Douglas runs up the beach to avoid the rapidly rising water and ,when he turns back, the other guy is just..gone. Completely gone, never to be seen again. Eerie stuff. Interestingly, this print jettisons the far more conclusive ending that was added when it was known as  Holocaust 2000 in favor of the original, more open ended conclusion.


The Zombie Diaries I liked a lot. Not the greatest zombie flick ever made, but definitely a worthwhile effort. What made it work for me was the fact that the last act spins off into an unexpected and horrifying direction. Low budget though the film may have been, it was gritty, the zombies looked pretty good, the gore was decent and it managed to surprise me. While I think the similarly themed   Diary of the dead was overall a better film, I have to give the edge to The Zombie Diaries for capturing that sense of realism.

On the rental front- I just ordered 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams from Netflix. Will give my opinion on that in a few days. Loved the first one.

[Splatterscribe]

Christmas came early for Splatterscribe this year. My big brother Mickey and his wife have decided to clear out a lot of the items they don't need in an effort to increase available space in their house..space they'll be needing now that their kids are getting older.

Their DVD collection was one of the first things to get downsized. Mickey has one of those cable packages which provides pretty much every movie channel known to man, and he has dozens upon dozens of DVD's  that he's  either bought and watched once or bought cheap and never even opened once the same movie began airing on the premium channels repeatedly.
 So ,knowing that I'm a full-on cineaste who just loves to add to my DVD collection, I got an invite to come over and plunder from the stack of boxes filled with DVD's and books they had decided to do away with.

Here's what I got my hands on:

Mr.Brooks
North Dallas Forty
Top Secret
Spacecamp/Wargames combo pack
Beetlejuice
The Naked Gun
What about Bob?
Judgment at Nuremberg
Necessary Roughness
Black Sheep (the comedy with Chris Farley and David Spade)
The X-Files: Fight the future
Innocent Blood
48 Hrs
Quigley Down Under
Sneakers
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Amazon Women on the Moon
Three Amigos


All of these DVD's are in the actual cases and are in excellent condition. Some of them are films I had on VHS but had never gotten around to upgrading to DVD. Others are films I've seen and wanted to pick up but  hadn't yet and there are even a few in there that I had never seen but wanted to.

Now add to that the mountain of books I also took home( the Ultimate Evil series (ie Ultimate Evil Women, Ultimate Evil dictators and so on) several books on American crime, etc) and the fact that I was invited to stay on, hang out (always a blast with them) and have supper  and yeah- the night was a total score. 

[GeneralCinema]

Christmas came early for Splatterscribe this year. My big brother Mickey and his wife have decided to clear out a lot of the items they don't need in an effort to increase available space in their house..space they'll be needing now that their kids are getting older.

Their DVD collection was one of the first things to get downsized. Mickey has one of those cable packages which provides pretty much every movie channel known to man, and he has dozens upon dozens of DVD's  that he's  either bought and watched once or bought cheap and never even opened once the same movie began airing on the premium channels repeatedly.
 So ,knowing that I'm a full-on cineaste who just loves to add to my DVD collection, I got an invite to come over and plunder from the stack of boxes filled with DVD's and books they had decided to do away with.

Here's what I got my hands on:

Mr.Brooks
North Dallas Forty
Spacecamp/Wargames combo pack
Beetlejuice
The Naked Gun
What about bob?
Judgment at Nuremberg
Necessary Roughness
Black Sheep (the comedy with Chris Farley and David Spade)
The X-Files: Fight the future
Innocent Blood
48 Hrs
Quigley Down Under
Sneakers
Ferris Bueller's day Off
Amazon Women on the Moon
Three Amigos


All of these DVD's are in the actual cases and are in excellent condition. Some of them are films I had on VHS but had never gotten around to upgrading to DVD. Others are films I've seen and wanted to pick up but  hadn't yet and there are even a few in there that I had never seen but wanted to.

Now add to that the mountain of books I also took home( the Ultimate Evil series (ie Ultimate Evil Women, Ultimate Evil dictators and so on) several books on American crime, etc) and the fact that I was invited to stay on, hang out (always a blast with them) and have supper  and yeah- the night was a total score. 

I love Amazon Women on the Moon.  In fact, I'm a HUGE John Landis fan (though I've never seen Innocent Blood).  That's a beautiful thing.

[GeneralCinema]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt73TC9xRz8

[Splatterscribe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt73TC9xRz8

I'm also big fan of Amazon Women on the Moon, going back to when I first saw it on cable in the late 80's. When I saw that as one of the movies they were getting rid of, my face lit up and I was all over that DVD.  The segment you linked to is indeed hysterical..but ,without question, for me the highlight of the film was this sketch with Arsenio Hall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHSoN8t6x3M

[GeneralCinema]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt73TC9xRz8

I'm also big fan of Amazon Women on the Moon, going back to when I first saw it on cable in the late 80's. When I saw that as one of the movies they were getting rid of, my face lit up and I was all over that DVD.  The segment you linked to is indeed hysterical..but ,without question, for me the highlight of the film was this sketch with Arsenio Hall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHSoN8t6x3M

The bitch don't live here!  Fuck you too!  Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

[Splatterscribe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt73TC9xRz8

I'm also big fan of Amazon Women on the Moon, going back to when I first saw it on cable in the late 80's. When I saw that as one of the movies they were getting rid of, my face lit up and I was all over that DVD.  The segment you linked to is indeed hysterical..but ,without question, for me the highlight of the film was this sketch with Arsenio Hall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHSoN8t6x3M

The bitch don't live here!  Fuck you too!  Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

That line was hysterical!! I also got a big laugh out of the the sort of immediate "non reaction" he has when the tv explodes. That was priceless.

[GeneralCinema]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt73TC9xRz8

I'm also big fan of Amazon Women on the Moon, going back to when I first saw it on cable in the late 80's. When I saw that as one of the movies they were getting rid of, my face lit up and I was all over that DVD.  The segment you linked to is indeed hysterical..but ,without question, for me the highlight of the film was this sketch with Arsenio Hall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHSoN8t6x3M

The bitch don't live here!  Fuck you too!  Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

That line was hysterical!! I also got a big laugh out of the the sort of immediate "non reaction" he has when the tv explodes. That was priceless.

Do you have two forms of ID and a major credit card?

[Splatterscribe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt73TC9xRz8

I'm also big fan of Amazon Women on the Moon, going back to when I first saw it on cable in the late 80's. When I saw that as one of the movies they were getting rid of, my face lit up and I was all over that DVD.  The segment you linked to is indeed hysterical..but ,without question, for me the highlight of the film was this sketch with Arsenio Hall:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHSoN8t6x3M

The bitch don't live here!  Fuck you too!  Hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

That line was hysterical!! I also got a big laugh out of the the sort of immediate "non reaction" he has when the tv explodes. That was priceless.

Do you have two forms of ID and a major credit card?

How did that happen? it must be that "invisible" man....

[WL Paynecraft]

That's a pretty good grab right there.  Props for Top Secret and some Quigley action as well.  I remember watching North Dallas Forty on those big laser discs that came out in the early 80's.  The "remote" had a long cord that connected to the machine.  Good stuff. 

I'm gonna have to unleash the list of movies I got from the horror con last weekend.  I'll have to wait until I get home though.  I don't remember them all.