You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Calling all Larry J. Ables to the cliff-edge for annual waste disposal...
Larry J Ables posted a "Review" Of Ozzy Osbourne's upcoming DVD set MEMOIRS OF A MADMAN that makes absolutely NO F***ING SENSE!!! He says it is the ultimate collection of Ozzy's music videos and concert footage. I can only hope that he meant "the best" instead of "the ultimate", but regardless, that's not what he said. He said ULTIMATE. A person can go on their computer and make their own "best" Ozzy collection, videos/clips or songs or both/all. When you add the label Ultimate to something just b/c someone else made it for you all prettied up and boxed, what kind of message does that send to your fellow man? What kind of message do your kids get out of that? That you can just throw words out like they mean anything, "ultimate", "God/god", "Love", "Hate", "evil"...those are heavy words if you actually know what they mean. If you disagree, then you obviously have no respect for your or anyone else's life and you're the kind of person who would commit manslaughter and have no need to cope with it b/c it wouldn't bother you that you took someone's life for reasons that could have been prevented had you been doing what you do the way you're supposed to do it (in the case of vehicular manslaughter, that would be driving...). And for all those "types" of people that may be but are probably not reading this, please join Larry J. Ables and take a walk off your nearest high rise cliff.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
YOU'VE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'VE DONE, HAVE YOU??
According to Blu-ray.com, the blu ray transfer of Gregg Araki's MYSTERIOUS SKIN is a POS.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mysterious-Skin-Blu-ray/94027/#Review
Just take a gander at the "Mysterious Skin Blu Ray, Video quality" notes; there are numerous reasons to stick to DVD. But Blu ray is better. It just is.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Mysterious-Skin-Blu-ray/94027/#Review
Just take a gander at the "Mysterious Skin Blu Ray, Video quality" notes; there are numerous reasons to stick to DVD. But Blu ray is better. It just is.
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
The Rabbit Hole Of Perversion
Stephen King had some fire in him when he first started writing. He kept that fire alive for awhile, but when he felt the need to publish 3 novels a year - THE TOMMYKNOCKERS, MISERY and THE EYES OF THE DRAGON all came out in 1987 - his masterworks became scarcer and scarcer. Now he's trying to regain that groove that kept his fans interested prior to his car crash injuries from 15 years ago. None of those aforementioned books are worth reading. FIRESTARTER (1981) is not worth reading. None of them are classics, nor are they "sleepers". They are pulp, submitted to the publisher to make a quick buck and bought by a public who is addicted to the hollow promise of amazement. How can one read that prior years' IT, and find anything worthwhile in THE TOMMYKNOCKERS, much less MISERY, which is basically Stephen King relating his fears that stem from him doing book tours (more "wow, it's like I know the guy! I should write him a letter and invite him over for coffee and show him I'm not like that lady...").
Stephen King has never had any business as a screenwriter. PET SEMATARY wasn't terrible, a story that good and that close to King's heart can't easily be a total trainwreck, but it would have been a MUCH better movie had a professional screenwriter been given the opportunity to adapt it to the screen. Much of the dialogue turned out corny, like the scene when Dale Metcalf's character is telling his wife off about lying to their daughter. The best example of this kind of buttheadedness was when he adapted THE SHINING (1977) into a TV movie in 1996. What the heck was he thinking? First of all, yes, the SFX were finally available to more faithfully adapt the book than Stanley Kubrick did in 1980. Two things of note: they were still very expensive and they were even more expensive to do properly. If you wanted a stupid cartoon for 2 year olds, CGI was still expensive to use. If you wanted dinosaurs realistic enough to terrify a grown man, you're talking the kind of money that Stephen King's fans and "Stephen King movie" fans combined are not numerous enough to make worth spending. Whereas JURASSIC PARK (1993) was a warm-hearted movie, the way Steven Speilberg makes warm hearted movies (even though it was still a horror movie of sorts...), THE SHINING is a deep dark dreary analysis of a family trying to grow closer only to be torn apart for good. And it's wrapped up in the form of a ghastly haunted house movie.
Someone on IMDB put it this way:
"As for Stephen King movie adaptations... sigh... TV is NOT the medium for his work! He is a blood and gore, swear and sex kinda writer, stuff that cant be on TV! It just makes ZERO sense to try and make it work!!!!! It loses so much weight and force when you edit them down for TV... just my opinions...[by TinaJosh, IMDB member since December 2010]
The TV adaptation of IT worked surprisingly well given how deep and dark the book was, not only as a monster story, but also the depictions of sexual abuse, sexual liberation, kids being kids, warts and all, homosexuality, etc. The TV adaptation is very weak compared to the book. It's clearly an adaptation of a story that was written by someone much more "into it" than the people that wrote the teleplay. So, although you're missing the sense of authenticity (the "I was there" of it all; and it did come from King's imagination, which stands to reason he was present at the events as they unfolded...), you still get 75% of the meat from the story. THE STAND was an okay book, not "okay enough" to warrant a six hour TV movie. Especially since the final product looked like a cheesy cheap sci-fi TV show akin to XENA: THE WARRIROR PRINCESS or BABYLON 5. And STORM OF THE CENTURY had no story. And yet it was 6 hours long. How do these things even happen?
If Stephen King makes it back to the publishing world with a truly good book in the vein of 'SALEM'S LOT, PET SEMATARY or IT, it'll be after 30 or 40 books of mediocrity and he will be forever pegged as the man who lost half his brain and continued making money off his name, and in turn ruined it. He's coming ever closer to writing a book that is worth reading. It's been bubbling under the surface. That book named after JFK's assassination date, and FULL DARK NO STARS gave me hope that he'd regained his prowess. DUMA KEY was pretty good, although I've yet to seriously dive into it, since there's so many other authors that I haven't read, including God himself (The Bible), but one thing of note is that he wrote that seemingly basing the opening parts of it on his experiences with re-habilitation/physical therapy, which makes sense, it's good for him to get that off his chest and it's good for readers who may be going through something similar to have that "I know, I know" support, but that alone does not prove he's gotten his groove back. Most of his stories are not re-imaginings of moments in his life, like THE DEAD ZONE, PET SEMATARY and DUMA KEY are. So when I see Stephen King's got a new book out, I don't assume that's what it is. I assume it's some story he wrote in the middle of the night while he couldn't sleep and turned it into his publisher so he could have yet more money. I can't tell you if JUST AFTER SUNSET was on par with NIGHT SHIFT, his first collection of short stories, b/c the first several sentences consisted of goblegook that is intelligible if you know how to read Mainelatin and is extremely off putting to those who understand the value of not trying to re-create English as a written language. If people insist on saying "warsh" when there's no "r" in wash, good for them, keep the traditions of your heritage alive if you insist, but when you write "warsh" instead of "wash", it seems like somebody should have told you to either stay in school or that you don't deserve to be published. I know Stephen King knows how to write. Someone who hasn't read SALEM'S LOT or IT may think Stephen King is trying to be some kind of weird post-modernist. But what do I know? The all heralded William Faulkner made his name golden doing the same thing...
I used to read Stephen King all the time. THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDEN was a total waste of time, I didn't finish THE TOMMYKNOCKERS after the first 200 pages showed precious little in way of story progression, and I couldn't help but roll my eyes in annoyance at this one passage I read in BAG OF BONES that just struck me as if a high school kid were trying to be clever...don't remember the exact wording...it was a sentence in the book that was meant to convey that the narrator was receiving fellatio from his wife. Admittedly, I trudged through SKELETON CREW in high school, as many of the stories had nothing to them, even though I praised it at the time, and just kind of "forgot" my opinion of the lesser stories. INSOMNIA is, quite truly, liberal propaganda, a great story yes, but so obviously told from the perspective of someone who does not understand humans unless they are Democrats. DOLORES CLAIBORNE features the title character in the opening pages of the story debating with herself openly amongst police officers weather to start telling the story from the beginning or the end. Seriously? And she "compromises" by starting the story in the middle. Nobody except David Lynch and his disciples tells stories from the end OR the middle! And what kind of 60 year old Maine islander who isn't a pro- writer, or aspiring to be, wants to emulate David Lynch? ROADWORK I tried recently reading for the first time, very tangled up wording, I read he was trying to be "literary" when he wrote that book b/c he often got made fun of by those types, or something along those lines, idk...but if that's true, it shows. The idea of sentences having a meaning and the meaning being part of something bigger seems to escape some of these "esteemed" writers. Nathaniel Hawthorne devoted 1 full page describing a door in the all-heralded THE SCARLET LETTER. Not a "special kind" of door mind you - just a freakin' door! Ian McEwen spent at least one paragraph describing a water fountain (!!!) in one of the pages of ATONEMENT, and while he was describing it, he used very obtuse sentence structure and obscure wording. And the aforementioned William Faulkner writes sentences upon sentences that mean absolutely nothing. His fans relish in this. I don't know everything. I don't claim to know everything. I don't think to myself "I know everything". When something doesn't make sense TO ME, I try to make it make sense. I try to figure out what piece of the puzzle I'm missing. I feel like someone has played a trick on me when I find out there's no puzzle piece missing except that which the author intentionally excluded from his book or maybe just forgot to include[?]. And the parts of these books that isn't meaningless in a lot of cases is a bunch of philosophy and pondering about things that I would either be thinking about anyway, or nitpicking about history and the meaning of some small sub-detail that I don't know anything about in the first place. Usually, I can read the description for a book or documentary, spanning one or two pages, and find enough info to mull over for a couple+ days. These mammoth nonfiction books that talk about these important issues are a slightly less waste of trees. How much does one need to be hit in the head with in order to take an issue seriously? I guess most people don't give a damn unless they spent x amount of time reading about something that forces them to in turn spend x amount of time thinking about that same something, which makes it a little harder (but still entirely possible) to forget about. These non fiction books dealing with real issues are largely pointless. They either offer some nitwits opinion on a matter (i.e.: Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD and HOPE: A TRAGEDY), or they document in dull detail a bunch of uneventful events. These "avid readers" and "movie buffs" crack me up. There's only so much time a grown human being can spend watching movies before they end up re-watching the same stuff or end up promoting mediocrity. And there's only so many books that are worth $20++. Oh, well. What would the economy be without over-indulgence? If people cared about their own well being, the food industry would collapse, and Steven Soderbergh would be asking The Salvation Army for food (although he's made a few good movies, none that are mainstream enough to support him financially for every day of his life).
Stephen King has never had any business as a screenwriter. PET SEMATARY wasn't terrible, a story that good and that close to King's heart can't easily be a total trainwreck, but it would have been a MUCH better movie had a professional screenwriter been given the opportunity to adapt it to the screen. Much of the dialogue turned out corny, like the scene when Dale Metcalf's character is telling his wife off about lying to their daughter. The best example of this kind of buttheadedness was when he adapted THE SHINING (1977) into a TV movie in 1996. What the heck was he thinking? First of all, yes, the SFX were finally available to more faithfully adapt the book than Stanley Kubrick did in 1980. Two things of note: they were still very expensive and they were even more expensive to do properly. If you wanted a stupid cartoon for 2 year olds, CGI was still expensive to use. If you wanted dinosaurs realistic enough to terrify a grown man, you're talking the kind of money that Stephen King's fans and "Stephen King movie" fans combined are not numerous enough to make worth spending. Whereas JURASSIC PARK (1993) was a warm-hearted movie, the way Steven Speilberg makes warm hearted movies (even though it was still a horror movie of sorts...), THE SHINING is a deep dark dreary analysis of a family trying to grow closer only to be torn apart for good. And it's wrapped up in the form of a ghastly haunted house movie.
Someone on IMDB put it this way:
"As for Stephen King movie adaptations... sigh... TV is NOT the medium for his work! He is a blood and gore, swear and sex kinda writer, stuff that cant be on TV! It just makes ZERO sense to try and make it work!!!!! It loses so much weight and force when you edit them down for TV... just my opinions...[by TinaJosh, IMDB member since December 2010]
The TV adaptation of IT worked surprisingly well given how deep and dark the book was, not only as a monster story, but also the depictions of sexual abuse, sexual liberation, kids being kids, warts and all, homosexuality, etc. The TV adaptation is very weak compared to the book. It's clearly an adaptation of a story that was written by someone much more "into it" than the people that wrote the teleplay. So, although you're missing the sense of authenticity (the "I was there" of it all; and it did come from King's imagination, which stands to reason he was present at the events as they unfolded...), you still get 75% of the meat from the story. THE STAND was an okay book, not "okay enough" to warrant a six hour TV movie. Especially since the final product looked like a cheesy cheap sci-fi TV show akin to XENA: THE WARRIROR PRINCESS or BABYLON 5. And STORM OF THE CENTURY had no story. And yet it was 6 hours long. How do these things even happen?
If Stephen King makes it back to the publishing world with a truly good book in the vein of 'SALEM'S LOT, PET SEMATARY or IT, it'll be after 30 or 40 books of mediocrity and he will be forever pegged as the man who lost half his brain and continued making money off his name, and in turn ruined it. He's coming ever closer to writing a book that is worth reading. It's been bubbling under the surface. That book named after JFK's assassination date, and FULL DARK NO STARS gave me hope that he'd regained his prowess. DUMA KEY was pretty good, although I've yet to seriously dive into it, since there's so many other authors that I haven't read, including God himself (The Bible), but one thing of note is that he wrote that seemingly basing the opening parts of it on his experiences with re-habilitation/physical therapy, which makes sense, it's good for him to get that off his chest and it's good for readers who may be going through something similar to have that "I know, I know" support, but that alone does not prove he's gotten his groove back. Most of his stories are not re-imaginings of moments in his life, like THE DEAD ZONE, PET SEMATARY and DUMA KEY are. So when I see Stephen King's got a new book out, I don't assume that's what it is. I assume it's some story he wrote in the middle of the night while he couldn't sleep and turned it into his publisher so he could have yet more money. I can't tell you if JUST AFTER SUNSET was on par with NIGHT SHIFT, his first collection of short stories, b/c the first several sentences consisted of goblegook that is intelligible if you know how to read Mainelatin and is extremely off putting to those who understand the value of not trying to re-create English as a written language. If people insist on saying "warsh" when there's no "r" in wash, good for them, keep the traditions of your heritage alive if you insist, but when you write "warsh" instead of "wash", it seems like somebody should have told you to either stay in school or that you don't deserve to be published. I know Stephen King knows how to write. Someone who hasn't read SALEM'S LOT or IT may think Stephen King is trying to be some kind of weird post-modernist. But what do I know? The all heralded William Faulkner made his name golden doing the same thing...
I used to read Stephen King all the time. THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDEN was a total waste of time, I didn't finish THE TOMMYKNOCKERS after the first 200 pages showed precious little in way of story progression, and I couldn't help but roll my eyes in annoyance at this one passage I read in BAG OF BONES that just struck me as if a high school kid were trying to be clever...don't remember the exact wording...it was a sentence in the book that was meant to convey that the narrator was receiving fellatio from his wife. Admittedly, I trudged through SKELETON CREW in high school, as many of the stories had nothing to them, even though I praised it at the time, and just kind of "forgot" my opinion of the lesser stories. INSOMNIA is, quite truly, liberal propaganda, a great story yes, but so obviously told from the perspective of someone who does not understand humans unless they are Democrats. DOLORES CLAIBORNE features the title character in the opening pages of the story debating with herself openly amongst police officers weather to start telling the story from the beginning or the end. Seriously? And she "compromises" by starting the story in the middle. Nobody except David Lynch and his disciples tells stories from the end OR the middle! And what kind of 60 year old Maine islander who isn't a pro- writer, or aspiring to be, wants to emulate David Lynch? ROADWORK I tried recently reading for the first time, very tangled up wording, I read he was trying to be "literary" when he wrote that book b/c he often got made fun of by those types, or something along those lines, idk...but if that's true, it shows. The idea of sentences having a meaning and the meaning being part of something bigger seems to escape some of these "esteemed" writers. Nathaniel Hawthorne devoted 1 full page describing a door in the all-heralded THE SCARLET LETTER. Not a "special kind" of door mind you - just a freakin' door! Ian McEwen spent at least one paragraph describing a water fountain (!!!) in one of the pages of ATONEMENT, and while he was describing it, he used very obtuse sentence structure and obscure wording. And the aforementioned William Faulkner writes sentences upon sentences that mean absolutely nothing. His fans relish in this. I don't know everything. I don't claim to know everything. I don't think to myself "I know everything". When something doesn't make sense TO ME, I try to make it make sense. I try to figure out what piece of the puzzle I'm missing. I feel like someone has played a trick on me when I find out there's no puzzle piece missing except that which the author intentionally excluded from his book or maybe just forgot to include[?]. And the parts of these books that isn't meaningless in a lot of cases is a bunch of philosophy and pondering about things that I would either be thinking about anyway, or nitpicking about history and the meaning of some small sub-detail that I don't know anything about in the first place. Usually, I can read the description for a book or documentary, spanning one or two pages, and find enough info to mull over for a couple+ days. These mammoth nonfiction books that talk about these important issues are a slightly less waste of trees. How much does one need to be hit in the head with in order to take an issue seriously? I guess most people don't give a damn unless they spent x amount of time reading about something that forces them to in turn spend x amount of time thinking about that same something, which makes it a little harder (but still entirely possible) to forget about. These non fiction books dealing with real issues are largely pointless. They either offer some nitwits opinion on a matter (i.e.: Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD and HOPE: A TRAGEDY), or they document in dull detail a bunch of uneventful events. These "avid readers" and "movie buffs" crack me up. There's only so much time a grown human being can spend watching movies before they end up re-watching the same stuff or end up promoting mediocrity. And there's only so many books that are worth $20++. Oh, well. What would the economy be without over-indulgence? If people cared about their own well being, the food industry would collapse, and Steven Soderbergh would be asking The Salvation Army for food (although he's made a few good movies, none that are mainstream enough to support him financially for every day of his life).
Marshmallows are our friends!
[image courtesy Amazon]
FOR SALE AT LAST
Buy yours here (if you want):
http://www.amazon.com/Marshmallow-Fun-2510-GhostBusters-Blaster/dp/B00JRGVWV4/ref=sr_1_12?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1408563453&sr=1-12&keywords=ghostbusters
wee-haaw!!! Now I Just need to find the rumored Stay Puft Marshmallows made by Marshmallow Fun Co. to be released in conjunction with this item.
Lemme say it again: WEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!!!!
FOR SALE AT LAST
Buy yours here (if you want):
http://www.amazon.com/Marshmallow-Fun-2510-GhostBusters-Blaster/dp/B00JRGVWV4/ref=sr_1_12?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1408563453&sr=1-12&keywords=ghostbusters
wee-haaw!!! Now I Just need to find the rumored Stay Puft Marshmallows made by Marshmallow Fun Co. to be released in conjunction with this item.
Lemme say it again: WEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!!!!
The Dark Art of Crime
Martin Scorsese struck me as a protestor of crime until I found out that he chose to participate in directing a movie based on a book by a criminal, that movie being THE WOLF OF WALL STREET (2013). I mean, maybe I need to repeat that - the movie is a translation of a book written by a criminal. This person, this criminal, wrote a book. And Martin Scorsese chose to turn it into a movie? I realize somebody else probably would have directed it if he hadn't, but it's not like Martin Scorsese is hard up for money. He gets paid ridiculous sums of money for every movie he makes before it hits the theaters (largely the reason why they usually don't turn a profit), so, really, the guy could retire and it wouldn't kill him. His mansion or NYC condo should already be paid off, and he should have plenty for food and enough for recreation. SHUTTER ISLAND (2011) struck me as staggeringly low-key for a Scorsese film, maybe he wanted to shake things up a bit? I don't know. Leonardo DiCaprio claimed the film doesn't "condone" the criminal's activity. That doesn't change the fact that it's based on a book by said criminal. If Satan ever published a book, the most disgusting, depressing book ever written, someone might feel compelled to make a movie based on it I'm sure. And they'd be using the same logic Scorsese probably uses to defend making a movie based on The Wolf's book.
FYI, I haven't seen the movie. If you've seen this movie and find anything I said to be false or incorrect, LMK and if all you have to say is "you're wrong" without explanation of any kind, hopefully you know how useless you are as a human being and the pleasure you derive from my desire to rip out your entrails is sufficient for thou.
FYI, I haven't seen the movie. If you've seen this movie and find anything I said to be false or incorrect, LMK and if all you have to say is "you're wrong" without explanation of any kind, hopefully you know how useless you are as a human being and the pleasure you derive from my desire to rip out your entrails is sufficient for thou.
Monday, August 18, 2014
scene selection
BACK TO THE FUTURE (1985) - Terrorists locate and attempt to kill Doc, McFly makes sparks fly into fire in mall parking lot...mall parking lots are cool, fyi. They're even cooler frozen in the 1980's. ("If you want Pepsi, you gotta pay for it".)
BATMAN (1989) - Mirror. MIRROR! "You see what I have to work with here...."
& "It's me. Sugar bumps."
BEETLEJUICE (1988) - the Geffen logo w/ Danny Elfman's score slowly beginning...DRUM.DRUM...duDUduDUDUDU...
CASPER (1995) - Dan Aykroyd cameo.
CLOCKERS (1995) - Opening credits featuring a sad homage to the lives lost in the name of gangs.
GHOSTBUSTERS (1984) - I tried to think of the most harmless thing...you know what I mean...
THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) - Sardo Numpspa (sp???) transforms into the beast that can only be defeated by the Ajante dagger.
JURASSIC PARK (1993) - The dude doing whatever the heck with the cages, then gets dragged into one of 'em by a vicious Velociraptor(sp???) [opening scene]
nowhere (1997) - theatrical trailer, found on VHS copies of David Cronenberg's CRASH (1996) and other New Line Cinema releases of the same time frame. You can request cultcine.com to include it with your order of nowhere (1997).
For movies full of one continuous flowing moodiness, I recommend BRINGING OUT THE DEAD (1999) and THE LAST UNICORN (1982). For 80's nostalgia marathons, GHOSTBUSTERS, GHOSTBUSTERS II and SHORT CIRCUIT are musts (for me anyway).
BATMAN
BEETLEJUICE
BRINGING OUT THE DEAD
CLOCKERS
E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL
GHOSTBUSTERS
GHOSTBUSTERS II
JURASSIC PARK
THE LAST UNICORN
NOWHERE
SHORT CIRCUIT
These I either own or will own (one day, I swear!) for their repeat-viewing-ability. Most movies these days suck, the ones that don't are rare, and are usually great moments, but generally wear very quickly when replication of said moments is attempted. I wouldn't mind buying them, but keeping them? For what reason?
Those films are:
THE BEAVER
THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY
THE DEPARTED
(500) DAYS OF SUMMER
MYSTERIOUS SKIN
SHORT TERM 12
THE SPECTACULAR NOW
SUPER
and possible others, nothing else is coming to mind at the moment...
BATMAN (1989) - Mirror. MIRROR! "You see what I have to work with here...."
& "It's me. Sugar bumps."
BEETLEJUICE (1988) - the Geffen logo w/ Danny Elfman's score slowly beginning...DRUM.DRUM...duDUduDUDUDU...
CASPER (1995) - Dan Aykroyd cameo.
CLOCKERS (1995) - Opening credits featuring a sad homage to the lives lost in the name of gangs.
GHOSTBUSTERS (1984) - I tried to think of the most harmless thing...you know what I mean...
THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) - Sardo Numpspa (sp???) transforms into the beast that can only be defeated by the Ajante dagger.
JURASSIC PARK (1993) - The dude doing whatever the heck with the cages, then gets dragged into one of 'em by a vicious Velociraptor(sp???) [opening scene]
nowhere (1997) - theatrical trailer, found on VHS copies of David Cronenberg's CRASH (1996) and other New Line Cinema releases of the same time frame. You can request cultcine.com to include it with your order of nowhere (1997).
For movies full of one continuous flowing moodiness, I recommend BRINGING OUT THE DEAD (1999) and THE LAST UNICORN (1982). For 80's nostalgia marathons, GHOSTBUSTERS, GHOSTBUSTERS II and SHORT CIRCUIT are musts (for me anyway).
BATMAN
BEETLEJUICE
BRINGING OUT THE DEAD
CLOCKERS
E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL
GHOSTBUSTERS
GHOSTBUSTERS II
JURASSIC PARK
THE LAST UNICORN
NOWHERE
SHORT CIRCUIT
These I either own or will own (one day, I swear!) for their repeat-viewing-ability. Most movies these days suck, the ones that don't are rare, and are usually great moments, but generally wear very quickly when replication of said moments is attempted. I wouldn't mind buying them, but keeping them? For what reason?
Those films are:
THE BEAVER
THE DARK KNIGHT TRILOGY
THE DEPARTED
(500) DAYS OF SUMMER
MYSTERIOUS SKIN
SHORT TERM 12
THE SPECTACULAR NOW
SUPER
and possible others, nothing else is coming to mind at the moment...
Widescreen cover-art?
SHORT CIRCUIT (1986) is being re-released on Blu ray for reasons that have not been (yet?) made clear.
The "cover-art" that Amazon has up for the item looks more like a screenshot of the movie than anything that anyone would consider being cover-art...the width is that of a still, and the picture of the back cover-art is not that width (regular rectangle...). Plus, the design just looks weird.
I recently ordered the movie on basic DVD from Sears.com and ended up with the same thing I was trying to avoid by choosing the basic DVD over the "deluxe" or "special" (can't remember) edition DVD that came out around 2008 -- a really dump picture standing in my home(!!!). Seriously, if you're gonna mock the movie that's being bought why even bother with the business of cover-art? It's got Number 5 (aka Johnny 5) doing a Saturday Night Fever - era John Travolta impression, while standing, alone, on what appears to be some kind of pile of rocks, not unlike Mac from MAC & ME (1988)'s home planet. Seriously! - who disco dances when nobody's around and the weather is so hot, you're seeing fuscha(sp???) break out and the ground beneath you is rocky like a hurricane?!!!
The "cover-art" that Amazon has up for the item looks more like a screenshot of the movie than anything that anyone would consider being cover-art...the width is that of a still, and the picture of the back cover-art is not that width (regular rectangle...). Plus, the design just looks weird.
I recently ordered the movie on basic DVD from Sears.com and ended up with the same thing I was trying to avoid by choosing the basic DVD over the "deluxe" or "special" (can't remember) edition DVD that came out around 2008 -- a really dump picture standing in my home(!!!). Seriously, if you're gonna mock the movie that's being bought why even bother with the business of cover-art? It's got Number 5 (aka Johnny 5) doing a Saturday Night Fever - era John Travolta impression, while standing, alone, on what appears to be some kind of pile of rocks, not unlike Mac from MAC & ME (1988)'s home planet. Seriously! - who disco dances when nobody's around and the weather is so hot, you're seeing fuscha(sp???) break out and the ground beneath you is rocky like a hurricane?!!!
For the visualizationally impaired and/or those who don't know what the heck I'm talking about b/c you aren't big enough of a fan to keep track of every re-issue of this movie that comes out,
above is taken from Amazon, although it seems to be a UK pressing, evident by the PG-logo in the right hand corner (if the triangular PG logo isn't there, that means the image source has been modified and I'll have to edit this post.....), it's still the same exact cover-art otherwise.
Here's the screenshot posing as cover-art I mentioned, as well -
Yeah, now does that scream "front cover" material to any of you? (Yeah, like I'm talking to anyone other than you, right?)....
Here's the glorious original cover, which is essentially a re-sizing of the 1996 VHS cover-art, which was essentially a re-coloring of the 1986 VHS cover-art:
A sad reality is it's amazing they kept this classic cover-art on the shelves as long as they did. A lot of the early DVD pressings did simply re-size the VHS cover-arts, but were shortly after re-issued with inferior cover-art. Take John Carpenter's PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1987) of Wes Craven's THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS (1991) for instance. In the case of GHOSTBUSTERS (1984), there's never been a cover-art worthy of the franchise on DVD. The 2009 blu ray release came close, however...the original black background w/ no-ghost insignia front and center was the best. The 1994 VHS re-issue was cool, b/c it had stark white lettering with kind of a botanical-ish font, declaring "BILL MURRAY DAN AYKROYD, SIGOURNEY WEAVER" and beneath that it said "GHOSTBUSTERS", with the no-ghost insignia nestled firmly inside of it, and the big whopper no-ghost insignia below it. The font sizing was different for the 1985 VHS, which called for the same wording and font to be put under the no-ghost sign instead of above it, and the "main credits" were also on the early VHS cassette front cover, which meant the no ghost insignia wasn't as big....you may not notice these things, but unless you spend more hours looking at some screen projecting your copy of the movie than having the box-art of your copy of the movie standing in your den, I declare the movie industry is forcing trash upon you (and I) and owning trash is not acceptable. If you have trash on your floor or on your book shelf, find someone who considers it treasure and give/sell it to him or her or throw it away!!! Satan has been given the power to meddle into our daily lives, but we don't have to let him win!!!!!
above is taken from Amazon, although it seems to be a UK pressing, evident by the PG-logo in the right hand corner (if the triangular PG logo isn't there, that means the image source has been modified and I'll have to edit this post.....), it's still the same exact cover-art otherwise.
Here's the screenshot posing as cover-art I mentioned, as well -
Yeah, now does that scream "front cover" material to any of you? (Yeah, like I'm talking to anyone other than you, right?)....Here's the glorious original cover, which is essentially a re-sizing of the 1996 VHS cover-art, which was essentially a re-coloring of the 1986 VHS cover-art:
A sad reality is it's amazing they kept this classic cover-art on the shelves as long as they did. A lot of the early DVD pressings did simply re-size the VHS cover-arts, but were shortly after re-issued with inferior cover-art. Take John Carpenter's PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1987) of Wes Craven's THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS (1991) for instance. In the case of GHOSTBUSTERS (1984), there's never been a cover-art worthy of the franchise on DVD. The 2009 blu ray release came close, however...the original black background w/ no-ghost insignia front and center was the best. The 1994 VHS re-issue was cool, b/c it had stark white lettering with kind of a botanical-ish font, declaring "BILL MURRAY DAN AYKROYD, SIGOURNEY WEAVER" and beneath that it said "GHOSTBUSTERS", with the no-ghost insignia nestled firmly inside of it, and the big whopper no-ghost insignia below it. The font sizing was different for the 1985 VHS, which called for the same wording and font to be put under the no-ghost sign instead of above it, and the "main credits" were also on the early VHS cassette front cover, which meant the no ghost insignia wasn't as big....you may not notice these things, but unless you spend more hours looking at some screen projecting your copy of the movie than having the box-art of your copy of the movie standing in your den, I declare the movie industry is forcing trash upon you (and I) and owning trash is not acceptable. If you have trash on your floor or on your book shelf, find someone who considers it treasure and give/sell it to him or her or throw it away!!! Satan has been given the power to meddle into our daily lives, but we don't have to let him win!!!!!
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
My life in movies; my DVD/BD collection if I had money to burn!
- The Addam's Family
- The Addam's Family Values
- A.I.: Artificial Intelligence
- Babe (1995)
- The Baby (1973)
- Back To The Future
- Basket Case
- Beetlejuice
- Being There
- The Breakfast Club
- Bringing Out The Dead
- Candyman (1992)
- Casper (1995)
- Clockers
- A Clockwork Orange
- The Dark Knight Trilogy
- Dolls (1987)
- Dolores Claiborne
- End Of Days
- E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
- The Exorcist
- Fight Club
- (500) Days Of Summer
- Forrest Gump
- Ghostbusters 1 & 2
- The Godfather
- The Golden Child
- The Graduate
- The Green Mile
- Heathers
- Hellraiser
- Jurassic Park
- The Last Unicorn
- Liar Liar
- L.I.E.
- Mannequin (1987)
- M*A*S*H
- The Mind Snatchers
- Mrs. Doubtfire
- Mysterious Skin
- My Girl 1 & 2 (1991/1994)
- nowhere (1997)
- Paperhouse
- Prince Of Darkness (1987)
- Rain Man
- Requiem For A Dream
- A River Runs Through It
- Short Circuit
- Singles (1992)
- Taxi Driver (1976)
- The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
- Three To Tango
- To Kill A Mockingbird
- 12 Angry Men (1957)
- UHF
- The Underneath (1994)
- What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
I might be forgetting a large handful....pls don't hate me if I re-post an edited version of this?
Thursday, August 7, 2014
BETWEEN THE BLURRED AND ME...
I do wonder...who keeps auto Google+ing my posts? Seconds after I post something, I see it's got a +up or whatever that's called(?). Is Google Inc. doing that so pathetic saps like myself feel less lonely or do I have a REAL LIVE stalker??
I could probably look this up, but, please, WILL the real slim shady PLEASE STAND Up (if you exist...one can hope...)?!
Yeah...I'm not desperate for a friend am I? NOOOOOOOOOO...
I could probably look this up, but, please, WILL the real slim shady PLEASE STAND Up (if you exist...one can hope...)?!
Yeah...I'm not desperate for a friend am I? NOOOOOOOOOO...
As if you didn't already know...GHOSTBUSTERS II soundtrack re-issue coming Sept 9
Boy, talk about a botched offering.
On Our Own - great song.
Flesh N' Blood - who can argue with a bit of Boingo?
Supernatural, The Promised Land et al - not in the movie, but not a lot of songs were...you gotta give people their money's worth right? Or at least let people think they're getting their money's worth...
MIA: the breezy piano music largely heard during scenes including Sigourney Weaver as Dana Barrett. Not to mention everything else Randy Edelmen composed for the movie. Also, while Howard Huntsbury's remake of Jackie Gleason's "Higher and Higher" IS included, it's not the same as it was in the movie b/c they secluded the tape-cut(?) intro(?) thingy that precedes the "main" cut of the song (watch GHOSTBUSTERS II again if you're confused - you hear that bout of sound coming out of your speakers PRIOR to the Statue Of Liberty's torch lighting? THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE CD!!!).
The GB2 OST is already avail. digitally, as of sometime earlier this year I guess...the digital version is the same botched offering as has always been available.
Technically, I can't say if the GB2 OST that's set to be re-released on vinyl and CD on Sept 9th is the same as the digital version, but given the lack of thought put into the soundtrack the first time around, and the lack of thought put into a million other things the music industry and every other industry has had a hand in, it's hard to find it worthwhile to hold my breath in anticipation...I might buy it anyway...I'm not pre-ordering it unless it becomes apparent that it's got a different cover than the original CD and cassette copies I've already owned in years passed -- the soundtrack isn't horrible, it's just botched, which is *NOT GOOD* (IMO?).
On Our Own - great song.
Flesh N' Blood - who can argue with a bit of Boingo?
Supernatural, The Promised Land et al - not in the movie, but not a lot of songs were...you gotta give people their money's worth right? Or at least let people think they're getting their money's worth...
MIA: the breezy piano music largely heard during scenes including Sigourney Weaver as Dana Barrett. Not to mention everything else Randy Edelmen composed for the movie. Also, while Howard Huntsbury's remake of Jackie Gleason's "Higher and Higher" IS included, it's not the same as it was in the movie b/c they secluded the tape-cut(?) intro(?) thingy that precedes the "main" cut of the song (watch GHOSTBUSTERS II again if you're confused - you hear that bout of sound coming out of your speakers PRIOR to the Statue Of Liberty's torch lighting? THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE CD!!!).
The GB2 OST is already avail. digitally, as of sometime earlier this year I guess...the digital version is the same botched offering as has always been available.
Technically, I can't say if the GB2 OST that's set to be re-released on vinyl and CD on Sept 9th is the same as the digital version, but given the lack of thought put into the soundtrack the first time around, and the lack of thought put into a million other things the music industry and every other industry has had a hand in, it's hard to find it worthwhile to hold my breath in anticipation...I might buy it anyway...I'm not pre-ordering it unless it becomes apparent that it's got a different cover than the original CD and cassette copies I've already owned in years passed -- the soundtrack isn't horrible, it's just botched, which is *NOT GOOD* (IMO?).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)