John Dies At The End (2012)

This movie is losing a star because of how poorly adapted it was. We all know that adaptations are iffy and even hardcore fans of something will accept before viewing that a movie will leave parts out, some of those parts their favorites. But many very important character developments were left out as well as very chilling and mind-blowing elements. The first hour was a wonderful experience, even with the few minor changes. The last half hour was rushed and confusing, jumbling up several sub plots in a very lazy way.

~THERE WILL BE SPOILERS. SPOILERS WILL BE MARKED WITH A STAR~

I'll start out with the PROS:

-Great casting, great acting. Dave and John were portrayed just as they should have been and Chase Williamson's facial expressions and line delivery were especially good. John was just as ridiculous as he should have been and his whole demeanor was very "book John". Doug Jones is one of my favorites and I loved that he was Robert North (changed to "Roger" in the film for some reason). I love Clancy Brown and Paul Giamatti in general but Paul Giamatti was a perfect Arnie. Also, Tai Bennett as Robert Marley was AMAZING. Dude deserves serious props for his delivery of "the speech" to Dave. That guy needs to be cast in EVERYTHING. It's very clear to me that many of the actors read the book and studied their characters carefully. The Justin White, The Shelly and Detective Appleton were all very good too. Overall, the acting in this film was really, really good and I have zero gripes with the talent.

-The special effects were at times a little campy (towards the end of the film, maybe the budget was getting tight) but that didn't take away from the experience. The Meat Monster was NOT campy at all and looked just as ridiculous and frightening as it should have.

-Some great moments and lines were kept in the movie, including the Bratwurst scene and the Korrok trolling scene.

CONS:

-Some of what has been left out is totally unacceptable and takes AWAY from what most of us love about the story. No shadow people? Not even a mention of them or an appearance? They only orchestrated almost every event that happens. The shadow people are genuinely frightening because of what they can DO. The shadow people, in my opinion, are the whole entire reason Wong's book is so frightening. The shadow people are what I see out of the corner of my eye when it's quiet and dark. This movie left out the most haunting aspect of the story.

-Marconi felt like an afterthought in the movie. He destroys the Meat Monster and then he's gone from the entire movie until the black tube that takes them to the other dimension. He's gone because the entire Vegas scene is completely left out. Shitload is still there but he's poorly combined with another subplot involving the Mall of the Dead, which is combined with another subplot involving Amy.

-Speaking of Amy, this film continues the trend of "cliche, pointless love interest" female character. Amy is just "the girl" in the movie. This is no fault of David Wong. He is very good at writing realistic, in depth, likable characters and especially Amy. Amy is a very well written female character. She is a realistic female with a complicated past and motive. David Wong impressed me so much with how well he wrote this female character. Most women can't even write female characters as well as David Wong. Amy's back story is completely ignored, she is just missing a hand with no explanation. She's combined with the Jennifer Lopez character which I understand and accept but she's also made into a totally different kind of person than she was in the book. Her brother, Big Jim, is omitted as well.

-The character development overall is very, very lacking. The actor's themselves did a great job but for someone who hasn't read the book and doesn't know Dave or Amy's past or doesn't know how alcoholic John is actually an extremely decent and good person, I can see how they'd find it very hard to care about these characters or what happens to them.

-Amy and Dave's relationship is hollow and forced. Again, this is a character development and adaptation issue. Many events that were cut help build the trust and bond between Amy and Dave and when they suddenly end up together in the book, it makes sense. **In the movie, Amy is just some girl with a ghost hand whose dog Dave ends up getting killed and she's suddenly into him.**

-**So, the dog's name and gender is changed. Not a deal breaker for me but considering how they end the movie, I don't see how it's even possible to make a sequel. Molly/Bark Lee is central to almost every event that was left out of the book and EXTREMELY central to the actual book sequel, This Book Is Full of Spiders.**

-In the movie's world, there is no reason why the people of Shit Narnia should worship John and Dave as heroes. All of the events that take place that make them heroic and admired are completely omitted. Anyone who hasn't read the book will be thrown off completely as to why the people of Shit Narnia love John and Dave so much.

-Korrok was kind of weak as an ending villain. Combined with the lack of shadow people and the cutting out of huge events (including Amy's chatlog), Korrok was not menacing and his immense power was barely portrayed. **The danger of his people in Shit Narnia crossing over to "Dead World" was not obvious, so why should we care if John and Dave blow him up?**

-NO monster-Dave?! Really?! I'm happy the Arnie Blondestone twist was kept but the biggest twist of the story is completely left out?!

The movie's version of the story is fine on it's own, nothing special, but entertaining and interesting. A few plot holes since the subplots were so shoddily thrown together. David Wong's story is amazing, blow-your-mind awesome, plot twists you can't even imagine and horrifying situations you will wish you couldn't imagine. It is genuinely frightening, heart warming, supernatural and hilarious all at once. I feel like Don Coscarelli just took all of the silly elements from the book and skipped all of the existential crises and back story that makes you love the characters and root for them. I think this would have been better as several movies with just the Vegas and Shitload story as the first movie. They tried to jam way too much into one film and even if there was uncertainty about there ever being the funds to make a sequel, the story would have been done more justice with just the Vegas plot as the movie.

Don Coscarelli will have my forgiveness if there is a director's cut of this movie with tons of scenes cut out that have shadow people, Monster-Dave and backstory included. I know there are limitations on lower-budget films but character development should not have been sacrificed just so the entire book could be jammed into one package. As a hardcore fan of the book and it's sequel, I'm very, very let down.

HOWEVER, if you're a fan of David Wong and you want the possibility of a miniseries or reboot, I suggest seeing this movie anyways. Rent it online, see it in theaters, buy the DVD. PAY for it, don't pirate it. Let's show our support for David Wong as fans, so that we can reap the benefits of more work from him. The fact that his book went from short story online, to full novel, to published on a small scale, to published on a large scale, to MOVIE is pretty amazing in general. I think we should all do our part to help him reap the benefits of this, even if Don Coscarelli kind of butchered his story.

I'll begin by admitting that I'm an unapologetic David Wong fan-boy; I own both the JDatE novel and the sequel in hardcover, and I've been following the progress of this film since day one of the announcement. The release of the film has been on my mind for months, and I watched this tonight with my heart in my throat.

Is it as good as the book? No.

It's also not as long. And it's in a completely different medium. And there is absolutely no way on earth that the film could EVER have looked and sounded exactly the way that I imagined it. The film is quite altered from the text in some places, and yet beat-for-beat in others ... and sometimes, the changes were jarring. Many of my favorite lines and scenes from the book didn't make the cut, and some of the changes were inexplicable to me.

But for fans of Wong's writing, this a damn good adaptation: created by people who truly love the source material ... even if, in some instances, it seems like they don't truly "get" it, at least in the same way that I do. That's not much of a complaint; I suppose that it's "praise by faint damning" my issues with the film are, given the circumstances, a wash.

I only wish that this amazing novel could have received the full 10-hour "Game of Thrones" HBO miniseries treatment. Since that simply wasn't going to happen, I accept that this fun little flick is a faithful beginner's guide to the weird writing of David Wong.

Buy John Dies At The End (2012) Now

As a fan of the books, I applaud Chase Williamson and Rob Mayes for nailing my interpretation of the characters spot on. I would have actually enjoyed seeing them play out some of the more outstanding and righteously entertaining scenes from the book though. I'm a little disappointed at how mangled the adaption is, but in and of itself I think it holds its own. It needed more time and a bigger budget to really have the same weight and presence as the book, but then again I'm not sure anything really could have portrayed this modern-day masterpiece on film and still do it all due justice.

Overall though, I'd just as soon go read the book again rather than rewatch this. It isn't awful by a long shot, but neither is it as fantastic as some of the other reviews are raving. It's a decent B horror flick. The movie is too rushed and the omission, renaming and mishmashing of characters from the book reaaaaaally takes away from it over all. I can't really believe that more people aren't disappointed by this. The book explores some incredible concepts and propositions to think about that are only briefly alluded to in the film. This caused several comments to have sketchy context and created a sense of things not being tidied up and settled by the credits.

tl;dr: Book was fantastic. GO BUY IT AND READ IT RIGHT NOW SO YOU'LL BE READY WHEN THEY SHOW UP. Movie not so much, but still entertaining. Don't watch it expecting a technicolor, holographic psycho disco-haunted house or anything else equally absurd. Watch it with the understanding that it's a compressed and distorted version of the book that still offers laughs but maybe not so many shivers.

Read Best Reviews of John Dies At The End (2012) Here

"John Dies at the End" is based on the novel by David Wong (a pseudonym for author Jason Pargin). It's director Don Coscarelli's ("Phantasm," "Bubba Ho-Tep") first feature film in ten years. The horror comedy did make the rounds at certain film festivals in 2012, but is getting a limited theatrical run in certain markets in 2013 and is already available on demand. If you've never read Wong's novel, you don't really know what you're getting yourself into. Reception thus far has been mostly negative labeling the film as incredibly bizarre without much of a payoff, but that isn't entirely accurate. Speaking as someone who's a stickler for solid writing in cinema, this is a rare instance where a film can still be pretty enjoyable without everything making sense.

Dave (Chase Williamson) is sitting in a dimly lit Chinese restaurant telling his unbelievable story to a reporter named Arnie (Paul Giamatti) and it's a doozy. After Dave is able to analyze everything about the change in Arnie's pocket without seeing it and knowing every detail of the dream Arnie had the night before without Arnie even bringing it up, Arnie is eventually able to come to the realization that this is no normal story. When Dave was still in high school, his friend John (Rob Mayes) was in a band. At a party that John's band was playing at, Dave met a Jamaican guy named Robert Marley (Tai Bennett) who not only knew everything about Dave but seemed to know every detail about everything before it happened. That is how Dave and John were introduced to a drug known as "soy sauce," a black liquid which "opens their minds to s*** they've never seen before;" those are the words of Robert Marley. Overloaded with heightened senses, Dave and John are now able to communicate and interact with creatures that aren't from this world but have bigger problems to worry about like how to defeat a monster made of refrigerated meats or figuring out how to throw a headstrong detective (Glynn Turman) off their trail. Arnie has the story of the century on his hands as Dave's story proves to be a prime example of truth being stranger than fiction.

The erratic atmosphere and disorganized sense of humor makes itself apparent right from the very first frame with Dave's story about whether an axe is still the same axe if its had its head and handle replaced while killing a skinhead. Its messy pace takes some getting used to. The beginning of Dave's story where he and John try to help a girl named Shelly (Allison Weissman) deal with an abusive boyfriend that died two months prior is bizarre. Not only because of the subject content, but also because the chemistry between actors Chase Williamson and Rob Mayes and their desire to help those who've had problems with the paranormal is eerily similar to Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki as Sam and Dean Winchester on "Supernatural." As soon as you think that though, the film seems to steer in a completely different direction as Shelly explodes into snakes, a doorknob turns into male genitalia, and that refrigerated meat manifestation appears.

That's about when all of these recognizable faces start appearing; Clancy Brown as TV psychic Albert Marconi who's a lot like John Edward except Marconi actually knows what he's talking about, Angus Scrimm in a small role as a priest, and Doug Jones portraying a man from another dimension named Ryan North. You'll actually be left wanting more of Arnie (Giamatti) and Ryan North (Jones). Paul Giamatti is still able to steal the spotlight even though he's only a supporting actor here. His line delivery is just the perfect amount of over the top disbelief when Dave shows Arnie what he has in his car and Arnie's line about Atlantic City is laugh out loud funny. The film is literally overflowing with sarcasm. There's so much of it that you feel like you may have missed some of its wit in just one viewing. When you're not laughing about how ridiculous the film is its humor is sure to circle back around to make sure you laugh at least once during the film's 90 minute duration.

After you settle into the film's use of controlled insanity (it's like trying to throw a saddle on a tornado before attempting to ride it), you get used to its crazy pace and begin to enjoy it. The film is particularly pretty awesome until Dave and John go to another dimension and meet Korak, then it's just bat s*** insanity. The horror comedy gets even weirder than you'd come to expect from the first hour. Nothing about the film is predictable, so there is that to fall back on. But people who don't already hate the film will really hate it by the time the last twenty or so minutes come around.

"John Dies at the End" is really freaking weird. It's along the lines of Quentin Dupieux's "Rubber," but really pushes the boundaries of absurdity. With its flying moustaches, severed limbs with a mind of their own, having conversations with bratwursts, and a dog driving a truck through a house that's on fire, it's safe to say that "John Dies at the End" will go well over many heads and won't be appreciated and that's fine. Just remember that you don't choose the soy sauce. The soy sauce chooses you.

Want John Dies At The End (2012) Discount?

No, it's not the book (which you will also enjoy), and maybe it's not for everyone. But if you like 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' & 'Evil Dead II' —I can pretty much guarantee you will love this movie as much as I do. It's the same director who did 'Bubba Ho-tep'.

How can you not enjoy a movie that not only has a meat monster, but also a killer mustache, a guy talking on a bratwurst, alternative universes, and a heroic dog?

I say give it a go. I don't think you'll be sorry you did. Bonus: this is good on weed.

Save 50% Off

Read More >>

Rush Hour 3 (Blu-ray/DVD Bundle) (2007)

I have a question, why are people giving this movie bad reviews that state themselves they didnt even really like the other two movies to begin with? Im not gonna go write a review about harry potter or something I hate and trash talk it cuz my opinion is irrelevant. If you liked the other two movies then this one will not be disappointing. This movie was supposed to be a comedy with some martial arts action poured on top and thats exactly what it was. Chris Tucker was hilarious in it and if he annoys you then dont watch the movie. I was in a completley packed theater and every person was laughing so hard people were losing their breath. So obviously SOMEONE thinks Chris Tucker is funny. All the haters need to back off of this post.

Fans of the Rush Hour series may (will likely) enjoy this one, but for the most part this is just more of the same action and plot that was in the first two Rush Hour movies.

All too predictable, all too easy to figure out who the good guys are (and who they aren't) long before the movie even really gets going, like the earlier Rush Hour movies the fun for this movie is in watching Jackie Chan's excellent action sequences and in snickering a bit at Chris Tucker's attempts to copy those or toss in a funny line here and there.

I have to ask the studio if they really felt it was necessary to waste a second disc on this, and have to wonder about the idea that Blu-ray has so much room per disc and yet this movie was released on two discs and not one? I suppose it was just a choice by the studio, but I know that Blu-ray discs can easily hold much more content than just the movie, or just the movie and a commentary track and original theatrical trailer.

There are a good many extras available with this release, but those extras aren't on the disc with the movie. In some ways that could be considered a good thing as you might be tempted to watch the movie again instead of simply putting the extras disc in the player and not having to worry about it. It just seems a bit strange that the extras do come on another disc rather than having a single disc with movies, extras and everything on it.

Further confusion comes from the fact that the main feature itself only runs approximately 90 minutes. (In many ways that can be considered a good thing about this movie). At that relatively short length, one would expect there was plenty of left over space on the main disc to have included a lot of the content that was instead put on the second disc. I suppose the trade off would have been that a bunch of content that is on the second disc might have been left out entirely in the name of saving the plastic used for make the second disc. If that was truly the case, then in the words of Emily Latela, "never mind."

Is it worth the purchase? If you can find it discounted go for it. If not, try Unbox and watch it that way (and leave room in your cabinet for sets that are better than this middle of the road quality movie).

Buy Rush Hour 3 (Blu-ray/DVD Bundle) (2007) Now

We really enjoyed Rush Hours 1&2 and with that in mind went into RH3 hoping for more of the same. Disappointment bigtime. Rehash, retread, boring, the series has worn out its welcome. The disk doesn't even contain an outake real, the staple (and often best part) of any Jackie Chan movie. Hang it up guys!

Read Best Reviews of Rush Hour 3 (Blu-ray/DVD Bundle) (2007) Here

I remember 2007 has been the year of the three-quel's, and at long last--after the ambitious excess of "Spiderman 3," the lackluster of "Shrek the Third," the love-it-or-hate-it logic to the "Pirates" finale, the return to glossy form of "Ocean's 13," and the tense, engaging "Bourne Ultimatum" (which gave a great ultimatum to its own franchise)--we come to its end with the fun, campy adrenaline-rush of Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker re-teaming for "Rush Hour 3." At the end of watching this I though it was okay but I felt a bit sad that it had to come to an end like this because I enjoy the first two very much.

Jackie Chan (Lee) acts well as usual (have some problem for pronouncing things but I didn't mind that) and Chris Tucker is still hilarious and he's still loud as ever. The jokes are decent and I had my shares of laughs here and there, the only problem I have with the comedy is that sometime they try to stretch it far to much and you're ending up saying "We get it already", The chemistry between the two leads is still there which makes these movies fun in the first place.

This was an unneeded yet entertaining entry into the series, but it is basically the love child of the first two. The outtakes as usual are the best part of the film.

Rumors of filming a fourth Rush Hour film immediately after this third installment were apparently scrapped due to unknown reasons, but one could easily venture that failing interest in the series hamstrung such a project (but who knows ...maybe there will be a fourth). Plenty of eye-candy awaits those guys who like to see marvelously curvaceous women whom you normally would only see air-brushed on magazine covers. Most notably is French actress Noémie Lenoir who plays Genevieve, a dancer with a very special head on her shoulders.

But beyond that, you're not going to see much that'll intrigue you. The story has been done ad nauseam, as have all the jokes. Let 'er rest in peace, guys.

Want Rush Hour 3 (Blu-ray/DVD Bundle) (2007) Discount?

I loved the first Rush Hour, and found the second to be amusing enough to purchase. This one however, just fell flat. The action scenes were not of the caliber, quality or ingenuity of the previous films, or of a standard Jackie Chan film. And as for the comedy, it really wasn't that funny. The movie felt as if large parts of the dialogue were unscripted in the hopes that Chris Tucker would "Say something funny" which never happened. Sure there were a few lines that made me smile, but nothing made me actually laugh. The plot would have been okay if it hadn't been used already in a previous Rush Hour (spoiler: bad guy is posing as a friend who sent you to get bad guy in first place) then you add in the tired old "It's his brother/sister/dad" part of the plot, which I hope was not supposed to be a twist, because I figured it out as soon as they introduced him.

The biggest problem with this movie is that it is a rehash of Rush Hour 1 without everything that made Rush Hour 1 so charming, which was watching the two of them get to know eachother. Chan takes the back seat in this picture to Tucker who, for some reason seems to be wandering blindly through the movie. The only good addition to the film was the French Cab Driver. Other than that, we just have a bunch of Tucker and Chan getting threatened, running away, getting caught, bursting into song, being attacked, chasing bad guys and bursting into song again. Which seems like the formula for most good action flicks (other than the bursting into song part) only this one just doesn't fit together as well and doesn't have the heart that the others did.

Is the movie overall terrible? No, it's okay for a Saturday afternoon on TV. I am just dissapointed by the overwhelming mediocreness of the whole film.

3 of 5 stars It's Okay

Read More >>

Back to the Future: 25th Anniversary Trilogy (with Hot Wheels Back to the Future Time Machine)

This 2005 release, "Lowest Price Ever" on the front package contains the corrected Widescreen versions of Part II and Part III. The original release in 2002 with an oval sticker on the package contains the defective versions of Part II and Part III.

The framing was so bad on Part II and III, you actually missed visual jokes! In Part II when Marty sizes the jacket in the future, the framing cut off Marty's hand when he presses the button to size the jacket. In Part III, when Marty and Doc are in the Drive-In to leave for 1885, Doc makes the joke about Marty's tennis shoes because the boots don't fit, but the framing cut off Marty's feet. When Doc tries alcohol in the Delorean and blows the fuel injection manifold, the majority of the explosion is cut out of the frame.

Part II DVD will have the marking, "V2" on the outer edge next to the copyright. Part III DVD does not have any new markings, but the Widescreen framing has been corrected in this 2005 re-release.

If there's only one thing DVD's should be applauded for, it's for giving old classics a new lease of life, and this particular title was destined for digital before anyone even knew what digital was. The Back to the Future Trilogy will, in most of us, invoke the same feeling of overwhelming nostalgia as when veiwing the original Star Wars trilogy.

It's been such a long time since I've viewed the original and wow, why did I wait so long before re-stepping back into the familiar DeLorean and riding through one of the most cleverly scripted and tightly paced films in history. I was blown away all over again by what the makers achieved in terms of, pretty much, everything. The performances are every bit as convincing and funny as you will remember and the sight of the DeLorean taking hair spin turns and breaking the time barrier only serve to ingrain this film deeply in your subconscious. It's simply what it set out to be, a thrill ride of honest intensity and adrenaline populated by sincere and truthful human characters that you generally care about.

The second part is, in more ways, even more successful. The plot is so tightly woven and controlled that you can't help but gasp at how much detail is included, from the Mc Fly family history to the correct way to turn on lights in the future. And for visual candy, you cannot beat the beauty of the flying DeLorean.

How much you enjoy the third will ultimately depend on how much you like westerns. While obviously retaining the style, wit and bravado of the BTTF legacy, it is alot more digestable in terms of plot and even set pieces. Though as a film by itself, it is a wonderful achievement in entertainment, viewing the installments in order may lead you to feeling ever so slightly let down by a conclusion to the one of the most twisted and brilliant trilogies ever to take place outside of a galaxy far, far away.

Keeping in tradition to the BTTF stamp of excellence, the extras on the DVD hit eighty eight miles per hour from the get go and rarely let up. Embarrassing other lesser DVD boxsets with it's desire to leave no stone unturned, we get 'on location' and retrospective documentaries examining the aspects and realities that the film makers endured in order to bring this adventurous tale to the silver screen. Cast and crew remincese fondly about how everyone involved was so excited about the potential of the script and the freshness that Michael J. Fox brought to the production. The star himself even sits in for a few interviews, giving himself wholeheartedly to talk about the movies that made him a household name.

While a frankly shocking reason is given to explaining Crispin Glover's absence in BTTF part 2 and therefore, all the extras thereafter, it is the absence of Doc Emmett Brown himself, Christopher Lloyd, that resonates most of all. Why he was not included in this celebration of the trilogy goes unexplained and therefore, unforgiven.

This minor gripe aside, this box set is for everyone who managed to hop onboard the DeLorean first time around. For others, this is the perfect medium and compliation to catch up with the time travelling duo as they were meant to be seen. It's astonishing how well the films have aged, and how much better than recent films they remain to be. A knockout!!!

Buy Back to the Future: 25th Anniversary Trilogy (with Hot Wheels Back to the Future Time Machine) Now

The picture quality of these dvds is really pristine, and the extras are quite nice, though I would have liked to see more interviews with supporting cast members.

As many people have noted, parts 2 and 3 seem to have been matted too high on the open matte original print, so stuff tends to get cut off the bottom of the screen, like Marty's jacket and hoverboard in part 2. Plus there's too much headroom on many of the shots as a result. I just called the Universal DVD return hotline and they are offering a free replacement of those 2 wrongly matted dvds. You need to send in the 2 dvds (without the packaging they came in) to:

Back to the Future DVD Returns

PO Box 224468

Dallas, TX 75260

You need to include your name and full mailing address, along with your daytime phone number and reason for exchange.

I also noticed that on Part 1 when I try to watch the commentary with Michael J. Fox that it cuts out and takes me back to the menu screen around chapter 8 or so. Not a big deal but I do think it's a glitch that occurs in some dvd players.

Read Best Reviews of Back to the Future: 25th Anniversary Trilogy (with Hot Wheels Back to the Future Time Machine) Here

Well, after too much Internet gossip and anticipation, we can finally enjoy the DVD version of this great trilogy. Actually, nothing needs to be said about the story or the fantastic crew that made it happen, everybody knows it (and if not, you're a caveman amongst other cavemen...or cave-women...). The DVDs have many extras you'll enjoy and then some...

Probably the most-talked about issue of this release is the product's interpretation of the soft matted original cut. If you dig deep enough in Internet sources, you'll read a mixture of positive and negative responses. Fact is, on this 1.85:1 version, you will see less picture information in height, and more in width than the 4:3 version. This movie was shot in soft-matted format, which basically means that the original prints were in a kind of '4:3' format, where in the upper and lower regions there is information that needs to be covered (the microfone syndrome...), and was not intended to be part of the screening of the film. This is done in theaters, and again with every video/ld/dvd release. This in contrast to 2.35:1 movies, or otherwise matted films and formats, in which case the widescreen format is 'directly' converted to DVD, and will give a much more complete film than the 4:3 viewing. But that's not the case here.

What all this means is that with the Back To The Future DVDs, a new matting has been applied that has converted the original soft-matted material to a new 1.85:1 format. This means that, like I stated earlier, when you compare the 4:3 VHS (that everybody knows) to this release, the 4:3 has some extra film top and bottom, and this DVD has some extra film left and right. This is what the 'confusion' on the Internet is all about. Some people, rightfully, indicate that they are missing peaces of the film (Marty's sci-fi jacked is f.i. not fully displayed in the DVD whereas it was on ld and VHS), but other information is added on the DVD (the hard matted special effects sequences). Thus, some people are inclined to say that this is not the original movie version. Actually, being a soft matted presentation in theaters in the mid '80's and later, it probably differed each time it was presented, with a different projector setting each time, resulting in a different matting and screening each time. This DVD version is just another interpretation of matting. And everybody has something to say about this one!

To make a long story short, please enjoy this classic and its many extra features, with or without the knowledge that in every different media format, there is a different viewing of this wonderful peace of family entertainment.

Want Back to the Future: 25th Anniversary Trilogy (with Hot Wheels Back to the Future Time Machine) Discount?

I was reading through the reviews and felt compelled to point out some misconceptions, especially in the review by the "Viewer from Wilmington". These movies were shot in Super 35, as some directors (Cameron) perfer to do. This method shoots a large, square area, with the idea that it will be matted when shown at a theatre. The director frames out what is SUPPOSED to be shown in each shot, whether it be 1.85:1 or 2:35.1. The point of widescreen is not to have more image shown, but to present the movie as it was shown at the theatre. The error for parts 2 and 3 is not that they are presenting a fake and deceptive letterbox image, but that when the engineer was matting a few scenes, the matted image was placed too high in the picture, therefore ommitting important information at the bottom.

So to sum up, the full frame version is all the actual visual information shot by the camera, while the widescreen version is the matted information that was intended by the director as all you should be seeing and is what was shown originally at the theatre. You can certainly prefer and buy whichever version you want, but you should at least have a correct understanding of what the choices are.

Read More >>

Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008)

Although I am a big fan of the original "Lost Boys", I went into this movie with a VERY open mind and with no real expectations. I just hoped that the film was, at the very least, watchable. Well let me just say, BARELY. This movie isn't good. Period. It's poorly executed sequel or no sequel. The pacing is off. The direction is amateurish like "The Grudge" or "Pulse" meets a bad MTV video. The movie uses gratuitous nudity and language to try and make up for the fact that it sucks, yet it brings out the film's flaws even that much more. The original "Lost Boys" didn't need extreme gore or nudity because it was relying on other things like a good story and good acting. This story is just a rehash of the first "Lost Boys" with a few things switched around. The movie even incorporates lines from the first film, which may have been cool if the movie was good, but since it's not, it comes off as more of an insult.

In the movie, there is a love scene between Reeser and Sutherland that is shot like the Michael/Star scene in the original with the same "Lost Boys" theme song playing. However, the love scene is emotionless. Any vampire could see it's just a bloodless imitation of the thirst-quenching original (sorry, I couldn't resist using some vampy adjectives there). Also, the film's vampire death lore is inconsistent. For example, sometimes when a vampire is killed, it turns to stone. Other times it explodes, turns to dust, vomits gallons of blood -WTF? Edgar Frog, (played by Corey Feldman) addresses it with the same line from the first film: "No two bloodsuckers go the same way. Some yell and scream, some go quietly, some explode, some implode, but all will try to take you with them". That kind of explains it but no vampires turned to stone or dust in the first one. Since this is a sequel, shouldn't they have stuck to the original? "Death by stereo", anyone? I don't know it just seemed like an excuse to use some CGI.

As for the acting -the lead actor, Tad Hilgenbrink (who plays Chris Emerson) is horrible -please don't act again, dude. PLEASE!!! This guy may look like Jason Patrick but he has zero acting skills. Autumn Reeser who plays Nicole Emerson is not much better and is pretty forgettable. Angus Sutherland, who plays the main vamp, Shane, falls really far from his family tree. He possesses none of the skills of his famous father, Donald, or his half-brother Kiefer. What's up with his accent? He's like half-surfer, half-Brit? Very strange. So acting-wise, this movie gets like an F+. That excludes, Corey Feldman, of course, the only ray of hope in the whole mess. Jamison Newlander (Alan Frog) was cut out of the entire film and Corey Haim (Sam Emerson) appears in a 20-30 second cameo in the end credits. Why would they cut Alan Frog out of the story? Jamison Newlander filmed several scenes for this movie and all were cut. Why? He could have been a great addition. In fact, they should have just scrapped the two leads and made the entire movie with Haim, Feldman, and Newlander. In fact, if you like "Lost Boys" (which I'm guessing you do since you're reading this), check out the four comic mini-series, "Lost Boys: Reign Of The Frogs". It tells the story of the original gang between the end of first film and the beginning of this one. It's far more enjoyable than "The Tribe".

Out of everything in this disaster of a movie, I enjoyed Corey Feldman and the Haim cameo at the end. I also liked the alternate endings available on the DVD's special features. Other than that, this movie was a complete letdown and ruined what could have been a successful franchise theatrically or on home video.

When I first heard that they were making a sequel to the 1987 hit "The Lost Boys," I was floored. Why would they do such a dumb thing? I wondered. Supposedly, a script for a sequel floated around Hollywood for years before it finally fell through, and after watching "Lost Boys: The Tribe," I see why the legitimate Hollywood gave up on it.

Forget the fact that there isn't one single original idea in the script. Forget that, even after 21 years, the special effects in the original film are far better than "Tribe." Forget that there is a lot more nudity, gore, and foul language in "Tribe" than there ever was in the original. Forget all of that. This film is just plain bad. It sucks, if you'll pardon the pun.

If you have seen "The Lost Boys," then you've pretty much seen a vastly superior version of "Lost Boys: The Tribe." In my opinion, a great horror movie must have several things...a really good script, characters you actually care about, superb actors to bring those characters to life, some humor, and decent special effects. "The Lost Boys" had all of that, and more, whereas "Lost Boys: The Tribe," only wishes it had 1/10th of what its predecessor had.

The story is the same...siblings move to a crappy little coastal town where the missing person population is staggering and jobs are hard to come by. This time, it's Chris & Nicole Emerson (any relation to Mike & Sam from the first film? Apparently, the writers were too lazy to come up with a different last name.) Their parents are dead (instead of divorced, as in the first film; Mike & Sam show up at Grandpa's house with mom,) so they are forced to rent a house owned by their aunt.

They go to a party. Nicole (Autumn Reeser) catches the eye of obvious head vampire Shane (Angus Sutherland, who definitely does NOT have brother Kiefer's talent at all.) She drinks from a flask, which obviously has more than booze in it, and voila! She becomes a half-vampire, much to the shock and dismay of her brother, Chris (Tad Hilgenbrink.) Enter Corey Feldman as Edgar Frog, the only returning original cast member that has any decent screen time. He's still getting ideas from the comic books, slaying vampires, and is still a complete weirdo. Feldman is LONG past his prime here. What worked for him as a teenager definitely does not work in his mid-30s. His character, who makes it clear that he lost a loved one to the vamps a while ago, should be more darker, and have more of an edge. The childish, home-made gadgets should be left behind, but they're still in use. I would have liked to see Jamison Newlander reprise his role as Allen Frog, because that may have made the film slightly more tolerable, but instead, we only see him in the 2 alternate endings that are included on the DVD. Don't get me started on Corey Haim showing up as a vampire during the end credits. That made no sense at all, and the 2 alternate endings he's in (as a human) make no sense. It was nice to see them on screen together, but Haim is not the cute kid he once was, and Feldman just looks pissed that he's even there to begin with.

As far as the other vampires go, they were all annoying, obnoxious adrenaline junkies (think "Point Break" meets "The Lost Boys," & you'll get the idea.) They surf, skate, ride motorcycles, and take great joy in stabbing each other for fun. They videotape their kills, and go "whoooooo hooooooo" a lot. They are nowhere near as evil or menacing as the original 4 vamps from the first film (Kiefer Sutherland, Alex Winter, Brooke McCarter, & Billy Wirth.) Kiefer Sutherland, as nice a man as he may be, has the most evil, menacing face and voice that I've ever seen & heard on film, and he was absolutely perfect in the original. He really should give his brother, Angus, some serious acting lessons. Apparently, the filmmakers thought that casting a Sutherland boy would give the film an air of credibility, which, sad to say, it did not. Kiefer's David in the first film had an evil, menacing seductiveness about him, whereas Angus' Shane only has plain seductiveness, without any real evil or menace, and even the seductiveness isn't that convincing.

The amount of gore, nudity, & unnecessary foul language in the film is substantial, as well as the serious lack of creativity (in one scene, dialogue from the first film is recited, word for word; it's Edgar talking about the various ways a vampire will "buy it...it's never a pretty sight. Some yell & scream, some go quietly. Some explode, some implode. But all will try to take you with them.") I was flabbergasted. It's one thing to recite a famous line, like Bruce Willis does in the "Die Hard" films ("Yippee-ki-ay, motherf***er,) but to recite dialogue, verbatim, from an earlier film...it only goes to prove how hard "Tribe" tries to be like the original "Lost Boys." They even went so far as to put the tag line from the original film in as dialogue. All I could do is shake my head in amazement. What little humor it has seems forced, as well.

I must say, however, that I did chuckle a couple of times at some of the fresh one-liners. I already forgot what they were, but they were funny. And most important, they weren't ripped right out of the original film. I also like the remix of "Cry Little Sister," Gerard McMann's theme to "The Lost Boys." The video for this remix is included on the DVD, although it's not on the official soundtrack to "Tribe." There is another cover of "Cry Little Sister" (done by another band) that is on the soundtrack, though; you can hear it when you're at the main menu.

Also, I must say this about the Coreys. They are more than their past mistakes. If Hollywood were as forgiving back in the 80's as it is today, I feel they would still have very strong careers. They are both very talented actors; all one has to do is watch films like "Stand By Me," "Lucas," "Silver Bullet," or "The Goonies" to see that. Hopefully, they will both realize that what worked for them when they were younger won't work for them today. They don't have to be a Hollywood joke or stuck in an A&E reality show for the rest of their lives. Even though my teenage crush on both of them ended years ago, I still like them as actors. They just need better parts (and, apparently, better agents.)

"The Lost Boys" had a great story, a strong cast, characters I actually gave a crap about, just the right amount of humor, and great special effects for its time. "Lost Boys: The Tribe" tries in vain to be all of these things, but it only achieves one thing...being a truly disappointing and forgettable piece of trash that deservedly went straight to video. The magic that was "The Lost Boys" was left back in 1987, and even though this film tries in vain to recapture that magic with nearly identical characters, storylines, and a "stunned-look" ending, it only succeeds in gloriously failing to do so. Perhaps the makers knew all along that it would be a failure that never should have happened. Now, I must cleanse myself of the memories of this film. I'm going to watch "The Lost Boys." 100 viewings should do it.

Buy Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008) Now

First thing I wanna say is stick around during the credits as there's a brief scene; now with that out of the way onto the review.

There's a lot of hype surrounding Lost Boys: The Tribe and fans of the original have been waiting 21-years for a follow up. There were plot ideas thrown around, but the movie never came to be until now. The original Lost Boys I personally don't know if I'd call it a classic movie, but is a cult classic and the movie is so fun and entertaining that it elevates the movie to almost greatness. The Lost Boys is a cult classic for a reason and now with Lost Boys: The Tribe expectations might be a little high.

Simply put Lost Boys: The Tribe isn't as good as the original, which I think most people would assume going into the movie, but with that said Lost Boys 2 is actually a surprisingly fun ride. I didn't really expect much, but hoped for at least a fairly decent flick, but it actually turned out a lot better than I thought it would; like the original Lost Boys: The Tribe is campy and a bit silly, but it does step up on the gore and nudity.

The screenplay by Hans Rodionoff wasn't bad, but it's never as fun and creative as the original movie and the characters are entertaining, but lack the depth like the characters from the original. But overall the screenplay was a lot better written than I thought it would be. There's some funny and creative moments and very much plays out like a homage to the original. Overall the script isn't without flaws, but works on an entertaining level like the original. The biggest problem is it relies too much on the original screenplay. If not for mentions of the first film this could actually pass as a remake.

Director P.J. Pesce does a solid job with the movie and gets the best out of all the scenes for the most part, around the hour mark the pacing does start to drag in some spots and while it never gets bad I thought it might just start to fall a part, but it quickly gets back on track. Even when the pacing lags its still an entertaining movie just doesn't fully work. There are some good vampire action and fun action movies. While his directing credits may not be anything to write home about he does show some talent and makes an entertaining film.

Angus Sutherland as Shane is the head vampire and his character isn't nearly as cool or as mysterious as David played by his brother Kiefer. That's actually the biggest flaw with the movie. Shane feels like a poor mans David and while a fun character he just doesn't really shine as much as he could have due to the writing making him too much like David. Angus Sutherland gives a fairly good performance, but he's still early in his career and has potential and seeing as his brother is Kiefer Sutherland and his father is Donald Sutherland I'm quite sure he'll be fine as his career goes on.

The rest of the characters are a bit mixed; the vampires are alright, but aren't nearly as fun as those in the original and like Shane, the vampires are too much a clone of the original vampires and they don't work as well. They were fun, but could have been stronger. Tad Hilgenbrink as Chris Emerson gives a fun performance and his character was pretty good as well. Autumn Reeser as Nicole Emerson was a fun character and steals the show early on.

About the only complaints I have with their characters is the same as I did with Shane's; Chris is pretty much a take on Sam and Nicole is a take on Michael. But both characters at least get a little more than just playing a new version of Sam and Michael, but a bit more could have been done, but regardless both characters work well overall.

Corey Feldman reprises his role as Edgar Frog and bottom line is Corey Feldman is what elevates the movie. His character is the same as the original only older. Any scene with Edgar was highly entertaining and like the original Feldman plays it straight, which makes it so funny since both movies are a bit silly. But that's the whole point on both his performances. I've always liked Feldman and it's great to see him back. Even though Lost Boys: The Tribe is direct to video it's still a high profile movie and its great seeing Feldman in a solid role rather than some of the movies he's done the last decade. Lost Boys: The Tribe may not lead to bigger things, but it's a step up and Corey knocks it out of the park.

Lost Boys: The Tribe is rather gory at times and it's a mixture of practical and CGI. But both really look excellent for a DTV movie and I have no complaints on the F/X and it's always good to see the red stuff shooting out.

Overall Lost Boys: The Tribe is a surprisingly fun and very entertaining, while some parts of the movie does drag in spots it always remains mostly fun. It's not as good as the original, but that should be expected. Like the original it works on a campy level even if not as good. Fans of the original should enjoy this on some level as long as you don't expect too much you won't be let down. And if anything the movie is very much worth watching due to Feldman who really delivers a great performance.

The DVD features 2 alternate endings both feature Corey Haim and Jamison Newlander. Newlander is listed in the credits, but his scenes aren't in the movie itself. Also Tom Savini makes a cameo in the opening scene.

Read Best Reviews of Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008) Here

I didn't hate it. I went into it expecting nothing better than an on-screen fanfic with more nudity, or something along the lines of some of Feldman's bad 90's movies, so I was fairly surprised. It had holes and a generic plot line, and I didn't like the cover of Cry Little Sister, but besides that...

The gore was so over the top it was funny (I laughed anyway), none of the acting was cringe worthy. Some of the writing was iffy, but it wasn't terrible. Feldman played Edgar *exactly* as he did in 1986--there's a character with zero growth. He even had the same hair and red bandanna. (He cleaned up really well, not his usual scruffy, sleazy self.) I liked the soundtrack, the sets weren't bad. The bike tricks were pretty cool.

Yes, it plays homage to the original A LOT. They even stole a chunk of memorable dialogue. The sex scene isnt nearly as well shot as in the original.

It's not a good movie, but it's not terrible either. If you go in hating it, you will. If you go in with a sense of humor and low expectations, it might surprise you. It was written as a love letter to the original. It wasn't trying to be its own movie, and it wasn't trying to be better. If you're a fan you will love it or hate it, it all depends on your attitude. If you're not a fan, well, there are many worse vampire movies out there.

Want Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008) Discount?

I for one was dissapointed.....not even close to what the original was.....This lacked Oomph, Panache what ever you want to call it.....What happened to the rest of the old crew, they could have came back as parents at least that would have helped this thing.....What happened to Santa Carla...Now Malibu....they tried to make up for story with campyness and sillyness,too much damn gore and nudity.

The screenplay by Hans Rodionoff was terrible....What a waste of 21 years....I am a "B" Movie lover but this this was a complete "F"

Sorry, My Opinion...

Save 47% Off

Read More >>