Birthday Buys

[lazario]

What do you guys think I should get? Would anyone recommend any of these movies / DVD's? I'm putting my budget at $100.

[tsmooth31]

stage fright and near dark are movies i have always wanted to see but never got around too

i would say get the blob remake..you said you have never seen it and can find it new for under 10$..there is no reason not to like that movie

[tsmooth31]

i just looked up picnic at hanging rock because i have never heard of it..it actually sounds pretty good..i may have to check it out sometime

[maycanady]

I would definitely recommend the Halloween double feature and the Psycho triple feature. Especially the Psycho one. Great way to get all the sequels/prequel in one clean sweep.

[Evil Dave]

If it's you're birthday, why are you buying them for yourself? Shouldn't someone else be buying them for you? Anyways, out of that list, I'd recommend Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Cannibal Holocaust, or Repulsion.

[lazario]

thehillshavedave said:

If it's you're birthday, why are you buying them for yourself? Shouldn't someone else be buying them for you?

My friends never know what I want. And what would I do if they did, give a list to all my friends, family... and roommates- roommates who don't give me gifts because I don't give them gifts. My gift to them is not killing them when they annoy me and vice versa I should imagine.

It's just the way things go. I don't make lists, except on Christmas, because who knows what movie I'll see for what price at what time and decide it's cheap enough for me to get it then. That would mean, I'd have to return the DVD and get the money. That's annoying and I guess my friends know that. I just get money and buy stuff. Greatest gift, that, really. Money. And this is a simpler set-up, all the way around. I usually get $50 from one, $50 from another, and several more amounts from other people strung out along the week. I do a lot of favors and am just a good friend. ;D

[tsmooth31]

My friends never know what I want. And what would I do if they did, give a list to all my friends, family... and roommates- roommates who don't give me gifts because I don't give them gifts. My gift to them is not killing them when they annoy me and vice versa I should imagine.


well if thats the case then you owe them..because im sure you annoy them just about every day and they dont kill you..so going by your rules they are giving you a gift everday

[Evil Dave]

^^^ Lmao! I think Laz owes me at least $500 then.

[lazario]

You owe me about $5,000,000,000!


Pay up!

[lazario]

Movies I ordered already:

And, as sometimes is the case- bills got to be more than a little overwhelming... So I'll probably order the rest by the last few days of this month. Or the first few days of November. And yes, I don't like it that way. Oh well, sometimes life is just nothing more than a gaping disappointment.

I had to get rid of most of the stuff in my Amazon shopping cart that you saw above- the seller just jacked the prices up on all of them. So, I put the following movies in there and if these prices stay pretty much exactly the same as they are now, I'll get:

I decided not to get Cannibal Holocaust because there's just no way a Euro-sleaze director has enough conscience to actually have a real, functioning social message work in this kind of format. "Shock" doesn't work without heart. And what person with any kind of heart would have the kind of scenes of animal cruelty this movie has, done on real live animals just because the director is sick in the head?

[Evil Dave]

^^^ You've completely misrepresented the CONTEXT in which these deaths occur. There are seven animals killed in this film (1 Coatimundi, a turtle, a spider, a snake, two squirrel monkeys, and a pig.). The film is set in South America and all of these animals are killed in the jungle regions in that part of the world everyday by local tribesmen for food and various other reasons. That's why it's shown in the film. You make it sound like the director went out and stole people's pets and killed them on screen for, as you put it, "shock" value. It's no different than Francis Ford Coppola filming a live oxen being brutally hacked to death by a machete for ceremonious reasons in "Apocalypse Now." Would you also refer to Mr. Coppola as a "sleaze" or "sick in the head?" I think not. Just because something bothers you doesn't mean you should dismiss it as someone being "sick" or "without heart." The scenes in both these movies were put in the films as a CONTEXT to give the viewer a true, no-holds barred view of how different life is in the secluded corners of our earth. We tend to forget here in America that there are still regions and civilizations in this world that depend on animals everyday to survive. Consequently, these same people don't hold animals in the same high regard that you do. They view them simply as a resource no different than we view a crop like corn. Don't be so quick to judge. Otherwise you're operating under the same logic of the FCC. Censorship should never be based on the content, but rather the CONTEXT of which the content in the film is presented. Otherwise you're simply not using that lump on top of your neck.

[lazario]

thehillshavedave said:

^^^ You've completely misrepresented the CONTEXT in which these deaths occur. There are seven animals killed in this film (1 Coatimundi, a turtle, a spider, a snake, two squirrel monkeys, and a pig.). The film is set in South America and all of these animals are killed in the jungle regions in that part of the world everyday by local tribesmen for food and various other reasons. That's why it's shown in the film.

But do you know whether or not it was actually filmed there and that the animals they slaughtered for the film were actually part of the same stock of animals that would have been slaughtered that day or the next day by actual tribesmen for actual food and various other reasons?


If the Same Defense is going to be used by all these cannibal and exploitation sleaze films... don't you think it gets a little old after the 55th, 56th film- the 55th, 56th time using the same excuse?? Because, when you defend one movie this way, you have to know people will follow your example. And now, any film with nasty stuff in it becomes valid if they can invent a self-important reason. Not all these films are made the same way, but now thanks to your defense of this movie, all the movies made the same basic way become serious, brave expose's of behaviors that aren't common in our world. When I think you know very well, that would be a bunch of horseshit. You honestly haven't proved that Cannibal Holocaust is in any way different than any of these types of movies. But don't you think you should, before this gets out of hand? Which it has. Now any dinky film about cannibals gets defended the same way you're defending this film! Now they're all great because they show us life the way the cannibals live it... Do you actually think the same defense works in all cases??

And by the way, if these animals were being killed for food and important reasons... than why is it being shown in a horror movie? To cause the viewer shock and revulsion. Which means - IT'S being taken out of Context, the way it's being shown to us. And if you don't think the reason for that is to shock the viewer... well... how do you explain it's being used in the movie at all?? They used it because they knew it was sick in our culture to do it. They did it because they wanted an extreme reaction. What's valid or important or even EXCUSABLE about that? It's cheap and stupid. You know... if it's so natural and harmless when shown as realistic.

IN OUR CULTURE, it's sick and disgusting. You need to know that. So, if it's shown to us, no Context can defend it's usage. There's no reason for Us to see it. And if you try and create one, you're being pretentious. Creating importance for people who don't need to see it. We get the same point by reading about it in newspapers or seeing it discussed on the History channel or the Discovery channel. In that Context, you can take it or leave it. That's the only way you learn anything about it. Here, you may see it for all that it is, but you don't learn anything from seeing it. It's not for us to see. Which is why it was sick to kill those animals at that time on film.

thehillshavedave said:

It's no different than Francis Ford Coppola filming a live oxen being brutally hacked to death by a machete for ceremonious reasons in "Apocalypse Now."

What makes you think I would defend it no matter who did it? I don't know if you know this, but Francis Ford Coppola used to shoot nudie films. I knew that... did you? So, I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that he did the same thing for the same reason.

Besides- I think you know how I feel about war films, anyway. If you forgot... I think they're all shit.

thehillshavedave said:

Just because something bothers you doesn't mean you should dismiss it as someone being "sick" or "without heart." The scenes in both these movies were put in the films as a CONTEXT to give the viewer a true, no-holds barred view of how different life is in the secluded corners of our earth.

Aren't you forgetting something? How many people in The Secluded Corners of Our Earth is this film being marketed to? If you want a no-holds barred view of that sort of thing, wonderful... When will you be leaving us for your new life in the jungle? This movie is not being given for Them to watch, it's given for Us to watch. And some things are too foreign to us for us to take much value or lesson from. Okay? Not to mention- where is the pleasure in viewing this? Not only don't we learn anything, since we're not the kinds of people who would do these sorts of things, since we don't live in that kind of environment- but the only reason to watch something like this becomes immediately either Idiotic or Pretentious. If you actually take this film seriously, you're either a Gasbag who thinks it's a message we need to see or a Sicko who enjoys seeing torture, cruelty, and realistic murder.

What is the point at all? It's like Tourism. Do you know what most people think of tourists???



I didn't start this to get into a debate. Honestly, this is the way it is and there's no real need to go into it anymore.

thehillshavedave said:

Otherwise you're simply not using that lump on top of your neck.

You obviously like to apply that logic too liberally.

And by the way, this isn't about censorship. Let people make whatever they want, I don't give a shit. But why let you insist that all of it is important? Just because we don't see it everday? There's nothing unique about Cannibal Holocaust that these other cannibal films aren't or don't have. I think you're being rather pretentious about this. It's crap, so you use all this high-nosed b.s. to make it seem important or ambitious. If you were right, than most people wouldn't Challenge people to watch this movie and call it "the sickest movie ever made." Things like that. The movie's fanbase would be a little more intellectual- that is, if you think intellectual defenses work in explaining it's content and the intent of the filmmaker.

[Evil Dave]

If you think the movie is so reprehensible, then why were you considering buying it, birthday boy?

[lazario]

I liked the trailer. The one that's just music and animated artwork. But, doing research is smart. When 15 out of 16 people say- "you gotta see it because it's fucking sick, dude...," you kind of start to question the people who think it's message is important. Or that anyone actually got it. People watch it because it's gory and fucked up. So, the message doesn't even work.

[Evil Dave]

The message doesn't work on them because they're juvenile idiots. It does work on smart people. That's why I recommended you pick it up in the first place.

[lazario]

I'm still not buying it (the message). I didn't when people tried to defend Maniac, Frailty, Haute Tension, and Carpenter's The Thing. I've been fooled too many times before. This time, if it looks and sounds like a duck- I'm going to trust that it's a duck.

[Evil Dave]

Okay.