criterionforum.org

Who Can Kill a Child? has been finally announced. Release date is June 26, 2007...

filmghost wrote:Who Can Kill a Child? has been finally announced. Release date is June 26, 2007...

Best news of the year (for me anyway)!

DVDTalk review for Who Can Kill a Child?

Just got one-sheets for Dark Sky's new Spider Baby and Eaten Alive discs, both look fantastic (aside from the usual overly Photoshopped cover art), but the fact that Spider Baby is apparently a new director's cut kind of irks me - I guess I'll have to wait to see it. However, Jack Hill/Sid Haig commentary could be great.

Amazon has a listing for The Cremator on March 31st from Dark Sky. Meanwhile, Amazon UK no longer seems to have the Second Run in stock.

Sweet! I've been wanting to watch that film since I saw it on the Second Run website.

I'm really glad to see a region 1 release, even if it is barebones and released by a small cult horror label for some reason. The only DVD I think I own from Dark Sky is Devil's Rain, and they did a pretty good job. Any company that pays that much attention to such a moronic (albeit fun) film must have a certain nerdy diligence that inspires confidence.

Some extras would really be nice, though. The film would definitely benefit from some contextualization.

tartarlamb wrote:Some extras would really be nice, though. The film would definitely benefit from some contextualization.

Very true although the visuals look strong enough to be interesting by themselves. In the meantime, we'll have to read this and Film As A Subversive Art.

DVD Savant reviews The Cremator.

I have my copy in hand as it arrived today, but I have yet to watch the film and confirm.

Looks good. Mine has shipped -- I wanted the Second Run for extras, but at $10 at DD for an R1, I couldn't resist. Especially once the reviews came in positive. Its quite a surprise and delight that Facets didn't release this film.

I could not find an appropriate thread, so I decided I'd have to make a new one, even if the US release of this title dates back to 2009, which makes it somewhat old news, yet it appears to have passed unnoticed here. The DVD boasts a very fine transfer from Dark Sky Films, and it's readily available from amazon and other online vendors. Here's a review.

There is a Czech release reviewed here.
I'd love to see a comparison between the US and Czech releases.

perkizitore wrote:There is a Czech release reviewed here.
I'd love to see a comparison between the US and Czech releases.

Hehe, since I've got to pay for each DVD myself, there's a limit to how many releases of the same film I'm willing to buy.

Perhaps somebody who owns the US release could take screenshots matching the ones on my site...? I'd gladly add them to the comparison...

http://eatenbyducks.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... mator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:http://eatenbyducks.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... mator.html

Are you sure those are from the Dark Sky Films release? They link to a review of the Second Run edition there... (Also, the caps are not full-size. )

No idea really, sorry

Just watched Bonnie's Kids on Saturday. Very highly recommended. Evey character in this movie is just completely irredeemable.

And includes some underage nudity... wow Bonnie's Kids!

Was Robin mattson underage when she shot the film?

Why didn't anyone tell me these guys put out Bonnie's Kids? This is a movie I've literally been wanting to see since I was a kid with a penchant for Tarantino. Never could get a line on a copy, and by the time I finally established the connections to track down such a bootleg, I've lost most of my interest.

So consider my surprise when I found this on the shelf of my local video store. And from Dark Sky, nonetheless!

It doesn't disappoint. If you want to know what 70s American exploitation cinema was about, this is as succinct an answer as Fight for Your Life or The Candy Snatchers. In fact, the latter is a great point of comparison: not only do they share the same star (Tiffany Bolling), but the same amoral and nihilistic worldview, where nearly everyone man (and woman) is out for themselves, where the few good people are squashed like flies, and where the California sun shines only so as to better expose the rot underneath. Unlike The Candy Snatchers, we actually like the two lead protagonists, we want to root for them: two abused sisters who shotgun their lecherous step-dad and hit the road. The film starts off like some proto-Thelma and Louise by the way of Badlands: which makes it all the more jarring when these sympathetic, strong women turn out to be two of the most conniving and opportunistic monsters you'll ever meet. Luckily for us and unluckily for them, they're two piranhas in a shark tank, and nearly everyone they come across is more ruthless (although sometimes more likeable). The only exception is Steve Sandor as a dumb, easygoing P.I., but it's little consolation: we have to stand back and watch him succumb to the toxic atmosphere exuding from everyone around him.

Oh, it's all certainly a tasteless, demoralizing experience, but it's never less than entertaining. Arthur Marks is far from a brilliant technician, but he knows how to move a film along. The film actually actually has comparatively little violence and nudity for a 70s drive-in feature, which makes it all the more impressive that he's able to sustain such a thorough atmosphere of sleaze and rot. At 105 minutes, it's longer than any exploitation film should be, but it never drags: no small achievement for a genre that often fit its best bits into a single trailer. And he has the feel for character actors that seems to become rarer and rarer the further we get from Golden Age Hollywood: even the smallest roles are fit with a memorable actor. The most memorable of these certainly have to be Alex Rocco and Timothy Brown as two hit-men, whose salt-and-pepper pairing and suits and ties certainly invoke the Tarantino connection. People often mention Pulp Fiction when talking about this film, but I find just as much an influence in Jackie Brown. Nothing big, just little moments which Tarantino seems to have amplified and elaborated on. A quick shot of Bolling dashing through a drug store turns into the dizzying shots of Pam Grier moving through the airport and mall. The entire convoluted "heist" seems like an inspiration for the mall exchange. Bolling even gets a "If you had the chance... would you take it?" speech. But there's no divine intervention here, no goodbye kiss. Just a great ball of avarice and doom. It says something about the film that the one sister that doesn't go on a kill-and-robbery spree turns out to be the bigger sociopath (the lesbian "outing" scene has to be seen to be believed). Don't forget to visit the snack-bar.

A superior sleaze-noir. I know a company has to make a buck, but releases like this make it all the more disappointing that Dark Sky has seemingly moved towards being a contemporary distribution company.

I just watched Bonnie's Kids again after so many years (before even tarantino did PF) and man, oh man, there's sooo much Tarantino in this thing. From the names of characters (Eddie, Mr. Brown, Bonnie), to specific shots and scenarios, there's even a scene near the end where a woman shoots a cop in the belly and its done EXACTLY like Reservoir Dogs. Oh, the dance scene too is very reminiscent of the one in PF. Its really like a hodgepodge, and at some point halfway through the film with the guy and gal running with the cash it has the distinct odor of Natural Born Killers and True Romance wrapped around it. I don't get why this particular film is largely unseen by the general masses who basically swallow up any piece of shit Tarantino has eyeballed and homaged in his own films. Not a particularly good movie, but its eccentric enough where I could clearly see why the man who love to quote it over and over in various forms. People always say that the films of Spielberg and Lucas et al were really just B-pictures with a bigger budget, respectable cast and shiny "hollywood" gloss. I think what Tarantino has done, particularly in his earlier films, is really do the same thing with those exploitation films and he's come up with a very interesting result. I know he isnt particularly revered on these boards but if it wasn't for him, I don't know how many people under age 30 would seek out Detroit 9000, The Human Tornado or the films of Sonny Chiba.

Or City On Fire!

colinr0380 wrote:Or City On Fire!

I couldn't resist reading the comments: "Rip-offs are better than originals more often than not. The idea isn't original obviously but the improvements make the product better. It's not a crime to say that. If you sit around watching movies from the 30's and 40's, then you're classical asshole. Oh, and Citizen Kane might have made advancements in filmography, but that movie and Orson Welles are both overrated bags of shit."

What is filmography? Good on Citizen Kane for making advancements in it I guess.

colinr0380 wrote:Or City On Fire!

yeah, City on Fire, Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3, all those other movies have been exhaustively talked about ad nauseum. Bonnie's Kids though, thats a whole new one and I was surprised at just how many of his films seem to have sprung from this obscured exploitation film (There's literally moments out of NBK, PF, RD and TR at every corner of this thing)...or maybe I'm reading too much into it.
PS Alex Rocco was a badass.

Tiffany Bolling is the sexiest female ever created ... and I say that even after learning (from the Candy Snatchers extras) she was a Bush supporter. Agreed, both of those movies are great -- well-directed and very surprising in the way they confound spectator identification.