I recently watched and reviewed Jamie Blanks’ Long Weekend. If you haven’t seen it (or the original), you can check out my spoiler-free review here. But I also felt a need to delve a little into how it compares to its predecessor, directed by Colin Eggleston in 1978. This will contain spoilers for both movies. Here are just a few thoughts I had on them.

The remake is not completely shot for shot, but it might as well be. To be honest, as I mentioned in my review, had I watched these in the opposite order, I’d feel differently about each of them. But as it is, I saw the remake first, decided I liked it already, and really I think it’s quite hard to unlike something. But it did make my heart sink a little when something that impressed me in the remake turned out to have already been done in the original (in particular, the white foam of breaking waves silently turning red with blood). As you’d expect, the special effects look better in the remake, especially the very last scene, a glorious explosion of gore, which the rest of the movie held back on.

One difference between the two is that our central male character, Peter, is Australian in the original and American in the remake (played by Jim “Jesus Christ” Caviezel). Initially I thought the choice to have an American as the central character bore some significance to his attitude, and wondered what the filmmakers were trying to say about the United States’ position on the health of our planet. But it is not once mentioned, and I can find little mention of it online, so one can only assume it was a casting issue.

Another omission from the remake was a scene from the 1978 version in which Peter gets stoned. I didn’t find it all that queer that this was left out of the remake, but found a lot to speculate on as to why it was in the original in the first place. Was it a tool to enhance Peter’s paranoia towards the creatures around him? A sign of his secret appreciation for what nature has to offer? The manifestation of his inclination to use Mother Earth solely for his own gratification? Or merely a sign of the times?

Outside of the nature message, a main theme of the film is abortion. But you can see how these two issues become one and the same. The couple have gone through an abortion, either as a result of, or maybe resulting in, the breakdown of their marriage, and the wife (Marcia in 1978, Carla in 2008) is constantly reminded of this. There is a moment that we become momentarily sympathetic to Peter, where he witnesses his wife smashing an eagle’s egg against a tree, and declaring, “You didn’t have to kill it.” It’s not all that subtle, especially in the original, but I thought it added a nice extra layer. Another symbol displayed here is the dugong (Aussie seacow) crying out for its lost cub, a sound that haunts our characters throughout, right up to the last seconds of the movie. We take this to mean that Marcia/Carla is doing the same for her own lost child, or maybe she is disgusted with herself for not doing so.

Overall, you could argue that this was a movie that did not need to be remade, especially when you consider the fact that there were no “updates” to the story, aside from maps being replaced with GPS. But Jamie Blanks dedicated his movie to the late Colin Eggleston, so it’s easy to see why he wanted to make it but didn’t want to change anything. I feel that there were a few things done better in the remake (the last 5-10 minutes), but this of course can be just a few tweaks of the original material (couple with the fact that I watched it first). At least it was nice to see a remake that did not lose the message or impact of the original. I recommend both movies highly.

Long Weekend is released on 8 Feb 2010 by Showbox Home Entertainment

I brought along a few DVDs to pass the time. So far, I’ve watched The Hills Run Red and The Children (I’d give Netflix links, but the Netflix site destroys my dial-up connection). Both of these were fun movies. The Children, especially, is a perfect flick to watch while cooped up with family. I think people should definitely check that one out, it’s kind of offbeat and mean-spirited.

Please continue to send us Midwesterners some good vibes to get through this blizzard. Thanks!

But back to the DVD: it’s got two feature-length vintage trailer marathons. One is horror-themed and the other is a more general compilation of exploitation flicks. My favorites so far are Gone With The Pope (definitely want to see that movie) and Banana Monster. They don’t make trailers like they used to! In addition, there is a collection of new fictional trailers based on some of the films from the Shock Festival book.

The set also includes a disc that’s full of mp3 sound files of original radio spots for genre flicks from the 70s and 80s. It’s a really neat idea and I like to see these sorts of value-adds included with DVDs. The packaging is also great, everything is full-color, including the attractive printing on the discs and there’s a cool retro-styled mini poster in the box.

The DVD set doesn’t come out until February 2010, but the book is available now.

Just wanted to point out that we’ve got a few new reviews posted, including Grace, Deadgirl and Harper’s Island. With the Splattercast and the forums, we’re able to shoot out basic “liked it/didn’t like it” reviews very quickly but we also enjoy taking the time to write more in-depth reviews once in a while and we hope you guys enjoy reading them. Our most recent reviews are always displayed at the top of the home page.

I got an auto e-mail from Goozex today announcing that they’re now doing movie trading, in addition to video games. I’ve had a pretty positive experience using Goozex to trade some video games (it’s got its downsides, of course) and I’m definitely interested in checking out their movie trading system.

Here’s the company line from the e-mail:

Goozex movie trading has arrived!  In last month’s newsletter we said movie trading would be coming and since then we’ve already added two new formats based on your feedback.  In addition to Blu-Rays and DVDs, you will be able to trade for HD-DVDs and UMDs as well.

Some key things you need to know about Goozex movie trading:

• Goozex Points are universal and can be used on either games or movies.
• The movie trading home page will be separate from the game trading – make sure to click on the buttons at the top of the page to go where you want.
• You can edit your homepage to be about movie or game trading via My Account.
• Movie trading is in beta and you can expect adjustments as we move ahead.

The horror sites are all crabby today about the newly unveiled covers for the upcoming Night of the Creeps DVD. I’ve seen the story all over the place, but I’ll go ahead and point you to Horrorphilia Podcast’s link ‘cuz they’re our homies. Apparently you can vote on which cover you like best, but that’s about as meaningful a choice as sifting through the catbox and deciding which particular turd you’d like to eat.

The original Creeps poster art is great, why not use it on the DVD cover? It reminds me of how, every once in a while, you’ll see some re-release of an Elm Street movie where they use a horrible photo collage instead of the breathtaking Matthew Peak poster art. All I can guess is that some marketing expert has data that says a more contemporary cover design would sell better on store shelves.

A while ago I wrote about my evolving feelings toward physical media. Coincidentally, this 1986 Fred Dekker film is one of the few movies I do want to go buy on DVD. Would I prefer to have better cover art? Yes, of course. However, it’s the content on the disc that matters most. So long as the DVD contains a quality transfer of Creeps, then I’ll be satisfied.

You might remember that the long-awaited DVD of Dekker’s other beloved 80s genre entry, The Monster Squad, also came out with a shitty, modernized cover. The content on the 2-disc set was pretty tits, though, so I let it slide. Also, for what it’s worth, there was an insert of the original poster art inside the case.

I recommend that everyone just chill out on this one. Yeah, it’s a bummer but it’s not like you were going to hang this DVD case on your wall, right?

However, in a roundabout way, these DVDs that I’m looking forward to have made me realize that I haven’t cared much about buying any other DVDs or CDs for quite a while. The last DVD I bought? I can’t even remember. Might have been Frisky Dingo… but, anyway, what I’m wondering is: Do I need physical media anymore?

This is something that my opinion has definitely evolved on. I’m not going to search it myself, but I’m sure I have previously posted about preferring to hold physical media in my hands. You can scour the archives and nail me on that point if you want. I remember when iTunes was first making a big splash, I thought: Why would I buy an album from iTunes when I could get a physical item instead for roughly the same price? I can always rip my physical CDs into iTunes so why not opt for owning the physical item?

Well, I’ve been doing some cleaning in the ‘ol basement and there’s a big pile of CDs and DVDs, most of which I don’t really care about anymore. I skim over my shelf and I’ve got stuff like Requiem For A Dream, which is a great film, but I haven’t watched that DVD in years and I don’t know if I’ll ever watch it again. So why do I have it? It’s just taking up space.

It’s not a cynical “I can just pirate all this stuff” thing, either. I’m willing to pay a fair price for entertainment media. For example, I have a Netflix subscription and I love it. Streaming Netflix onto the TV via my Xbox is pretty killer. I keep an eye out for Amazon’s MP3 deals. They sell you DRM-free songs, so even though it’s digital data, you do end up feeling like you “own” the product. The other day I wanted to hear “Dizz Knee Land” by Dada (shut up, you liked that song, too) and while I admit that the first thing I did was look for a torrent (did I ever claim to be a saint?) after a minute or so I just went to Amazon and bought the MP3 legitimately. It was easy, reasonably priced and that file is mine forever.

I don’t hate physical media. My Netflix plan is 3 DVDs plus streaming. There are many, many titles in their catalog that are not in their streaming library. For those films, I get the physical DVD in the mail. You also don’t get the special features and DVD extras in the streaming library, so the physical disc still has advantages as a delivery medium. But I’m not talking about that, I’m talking about owning the physical item and having to permanently store it. When I’m done with a Netflix DVD I mail it back and it’s not cluttering up my house.

I’m not ready to completely give up owning physical copies. I do like having things on the shelf. I dig the cover art. I want to re-watch certain things over and over. And it’s not like a digital library doesn’t have its own unique downsides. A big one is that you’ve gotta back that stuff up once in a while or you’ll be pretty miserable when your hardware fails.

More and more, though, I’m not interested in buying a physical copy of most things. I’m still willing to pay for the experience, but I don’t want the item hanging around afterward.

Kind of like a hooker, I guess.

What do you guys think? Do you prefer to own physical DVDs and CDs, or are you migrating toward a digital library?

I promise that I will use my newfound power to try to get those heartless IMDB cocksuckers to finally accept The Grand Horror into their tome now that a BIG NAME ACTOR such as myself can attach himself to it.

Apparently mostly-filling the Grand Theater and selling out our first edition of DVDs wasn’t enough for them!