Description

Geared for the times, Russ Meyer’s Super Vixens wields the double- bladed axe of satire . . . cutting and hacking its way to the very bone of society . . . layingbare and exposing, the great candor, the frailties, weaknesses, and strengths of itscitizens. A picture born of entertainment, shocking in its frankness, yet so hilariouslyfunny in its delivery. A cinematic smorgasbord of erotic fantasy . . . Six of the world’smost Bountiful women . . . served up from the lusty table of Russ Meyer. Feast On It!! ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Not So Super
For years, Meyer's movies were only available on VHS for obscenely high prices. When this movie finally came out on DVD, I couldn't wait to see it again. Russ Meyer wrote, directed, produced and edited this film, so it includes all of his strengths and weaknesses. All of the women have very large breasts, but the sex scenes are fleeting and not very erotic. The dialogue is corny, and all of the characters are caricatures. Most disturbing of all, the violence is not only excessive and over the top, it comprises most of the movie.

Shari Eubank is fine as the demanding SuperAngel, who rises from the ashes of her fiery demise to become SuperVixen, the gorgeous gal with a heart of gold. Charles Napier is great as he chews cigars and chews scenery, playing the macho officer Harry Sledge. He went on to bigger and better things, appearing in many mainstream movies, such as "The Blues Brothers" and "Rambo." Charles Pitts is too bland to be convincing as Clint Ramsey, the stud every super-stacked woman is dying to have sex with. Christy Hartburg, who had a cameo as SuperLorna and is featured on the cover of the DVD, never appeared in another movie! "Supervixens" has not aged very well, and is more interesting as a curiosity than as a cult classic. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Tom Baker's second outing as the renegade Time Lord is a solid entry in the venerable British science fiction series' history, and its overall quality is well-matched by the wealth of supplemental material on the DVD. Fan favorite Robert Holmes penned "The Ark in Space," which places the Doctor and his companions Sarah (Elisabeth Sladen) and Harry (Ian Marter) on a seemingly deserted space station many years in the future. Station Nerva is not as empty as it appears, though; onboard are the cryogenically preserved survivors of Earth's destruction, as well as an insectlike alien race, the Wirrin, which are determined to use the humans--and the Doctor--as hosts to grow their monstrous larvae. Holmes's well-paced script (which, like Alien, bears a resemblance to the A.E. van Vogt story "Black Destroyer") allows Baker to flesh out his well-loved take on the Doctor, as well as considerable suspense. --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Reviews (42)

Classic sci-fi TV survives because of excellent scripting...
A great segment from TV's longest running sci-fi series. Due to lack of budget these episodes of Tom Baker's second story have the typical cheesy effects and limited set designs, however the tight script and fascinating premise will keep any true sci-fi fan riveted. Note how this 1974 TV show had similar aspects to 1979's ALIEN movie by Ridley Scott (Insects in space that germinate in the human form aboard a craft of cryogenic sleepers resulting in the aliens being destroyed aboard an escape craft). Coincidence? Anyway you slice it, the gorey deaths, cool rubbery aliens, cliff hangers, snazzy dialogue and glimpses of future cultures keep the eyes watching and the mind whirling. This is a must for any Doctor Who fan's collection.

Excellent Tom Baker Episode
The second of Tom Baker's many episodes as the Fourth Doctor, the Ark in Space is an excellent example of a well-written and well-executed Doctor Who story.

The basic plot: the TARDIS materializes on a space station soon found to be filled with human beings in suspended animation. The Doctor quickly surmises that the station and its contents represent the whole of the human race and its knowledge, preserved to weather some terrible catastrophe. Due to sabotage, the station's inhabitants have overslept by many thousand years.

The sabotage was carried out by one of the Wyrrn, a race of space-dwelling giant insects who visit planets only to reproduce. The Wyrrn have decided to use the last humans as incubators for their young, and the Doctor, long-time favorite companion Sarah, and the reluctant Harry must prevent the Wyrrn from wiping out all humankind.

Whereas many episodes degenerated into camp (though at times very successfully), the Ark in Space does an excellent job at remaining true to its science fiction roots. The episode does still offer plenty of wit as only Tom Baker could deliver it, yet it never lets the humor dominate the story. The plot is tightly-done without side trips and tangents; the Doctor and crew are concerned with the Wyrrn and saving humanity, and that is the task they take on and accomplish.

The special effects (or defects) are suitably cheesily done as befitting the Dr. Who franchise, including the use og green bubble-wrap to create monsters. But that's part of the charm of the series, and a point in Ark in Space's favor that the bad effects didn't lead to pure camp.

The DVD includes commentary (albeit somewhat disjointed due to the fact of its recording over twenty years after the airing of the actual episode); said commentary is interesting and gives a look at those who created the series. The other features of the disc are decent but not spectacular on the whole.

I highly recommend this episode for any fan of Dr. Who.

beginning of an amazing era...
After the Tom Baker intro story, "The Giant Robot", "The Ark in Space" really cemented Tom Baker in the role of the Doctor and was re-written by Robert Holmes who had become the script editor for the next three seasons under the command of Phillip Hinchcliffe. This was the beginning of the three most popular and well crafted seasons of Doctor Who for most fans and the gothic horror style of the next three seasons raise the show to a popularity never before seen in many many countries. This mystery in space lets us get to know Bakers Doctor and we get better acquainted with Sarah Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan as well. Look for the stirring, inspired speech the Doctor makes about mankind, just one of the many treats in this fun adventure.

"DOCTOR WHO" - "ALIEN" STYLE!
"The Ark in Space," the second "Doctor Who" adventure starring Tom Baker, in an exciting tale of aliens using humans to live, an adventure preceding "Alien" by four years. It has all the humour, excitement and cheezy visual effects and costumes that make "Doctor Who" the cult classic that it is! The DVD offers very good special features, including an amusing commentary track with Tom Baker, Elisabeth Sladen and producer Philip Hinchcliffe. Any fan of "Doctor Who" will want this adventure in their DVD collection! Prorgram/DVD Grade: A+

An undisputed classic.
"The Ark in Space" is an excellent, spellbinding tale from Doctor Who's gothic Hinchcliffe era, set on a spaceship many thousands of years in our future. It's also the first really great story to feature the wonderful Tom Baker in the title role, and is, for me at least, a better introduction to his time on Doctor Who than his own debut story, "Robot".

Thousands of years have passed since the present day, and ecological disasters have forced humanity to go into hibernation. While civilization crumbled and decayed on the surface of our world, out in orbit around it was constructed a safe haven for the slumbering human race. With the selected few meant to carry on the species in suspended animation, they were helpless to do anything when something else decided to make its own nest there too ... The Doctor arrives just as that something is beginning to reawaken, and is about to become a threat to the sleeping humans.

"The Ark in Space" would have been dubbed an "Alien" clone had it come out a few years later: while it was safely produced in 1974, its story has a lot of things in common with the Ridley Scott film. Luckily for this story, "Alien" didn't have the Doctor, but that's not the only reason to watch it now. Sure, this doesn't look as good ... the low budget is obviously apparant in most every scene you'll see here, but rather than make this a bad production it actually has the opposite effect. The production crew have done a splendid job here, constructing a sterile and utterly believeable environment for the story to take place in, from the white, empty corridors of the space station to the sleeping chambers where the humans reside. Apparantly they hadn't had a lot of material to work with, but with what they had they produced some real miracles. It's wonderful to look at. The aliens in this story, the Wirrn, are a wonderful as well... when I first caught a glance at them, I thought they looked terribly cheap, but that feeling went away after I'd really studied them. They're excellently insectoid ... even the transformation of one of the humans into a Wirrn, accomplished with green spray-painted bubble wrap, doesn't look terrible because of the fact that bubble wrap is used: insects seem to be able to create remarkable geometric structures (honeycombs, wasps nests, etc)... the use of bubble wrap, with its tiny, identical circles, is absolutely perfect and is therefore convincing.

I can't believe I've made such a big deal about the production values here, as I didn't really mean to, but they are obviously worth congratulating. But everything else is great here too: the premise of the story (pre-"Alien", I will say again), the excellent new Doctor and his companions, the setting, and the story that follows the Doctor's arrival, told over the course of four mesmerizing episodes ... You can't go wrong with this one. Of all the Tom Baker stories to be selected for a release on DVD, I am glad that this was among the first. The DVD contains a wonderful vintage interview with Tom Baker, by the way, filmed while he was still just settling into the part. Very interesting indeed.

Carry on Carry on,

MN ... Read more

Reviews (120)

Good Remake!
"Their coming to get you Barbara", but this time Barbara is ready for them. A remake of the original classic "Night of the Living Dead". A modern retelling based on a updated scripted by George Romero and directed by Tom Savini.

This is pretty much the same story as NOTLD '68, but with better effects and a few new twists. The recent dead have returned to life and now seek the flesh of the living. Seven strangers are trapped in an isolated farmhouse struggling with the horror that awaits them on the outside and the tension that will eventually destroy them on the inside. Romero re-introduces all our favorite character: Ben (Tony Todd), Cooper (Tom Towles), etc. There are even striking reminiscences between the cast in 68 and 90, and that wasn't a coincidence. Barbara (Patricia Tallmen) has been miraculously been transformed from a comatose broad into a female Rambo. She seemingly being the only one with any grasp of the situation and this time she's not waiting for Johnny.

Not overly gory, but the zombie make-up was fantastic. The twists breath new life into this classic movie. Tom Savini did an exceptional job in his big screen directorial debut and maybe someday we'll be lucky enough to see his director's cut of this modern classic.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD - TONY TODD
DEFINITELY A GOOD ZOMBIE MOVIE AND VERY WELL DONE,BUT NOT A GOOD REMAKE OF THE ORIGINAL.THE BARBARA CHARACTER WAS A BIT ANNOYING, AND NOTHING LIKE THE ORIGINAL,THE STORYLINE WENT OFF SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY. ASIDE FROM THAT, THIS IS A REALLY GOOD ZOMBIE FILM AND IS WORTH A WATCH.

Excellent remake!
I felt compelled to comment on this flick. I loved the first one. And, I love the remake. The addition of color and a bolder, sexier Barbara only adds to the film. They didn't change the original theme of the movie. Just enhanced it! I own the Millenium edition of the first film. And I own the 1979 remake. Lov'em both, but prefer the remake!!!

A Fairly Pointless Remake
It's been said before but, just for the record, I'm gonna say it again: If it ain't broke, don't bother fixing it. In other words, if you've already got a movie that's widely regarded as a classic of the genre it can safely be said there is little point in trying to improve upon it. So quite why anyone thought Night of the Living Dead needed a remake is beyond me, especially when you consider the iron clad rule that applies to remakes as much as it does to movies with a '2' in the title: nine times out of ten, it's gonna suck.
However, to its credit, NOTLD remake is at least done with the support and input of those assosciated with the original film (including Romero), unlike the recent spate of Hollywood remakes, which seem to almost take perverse glee in undermining the original film without any consultation to, or recognition of, the original film makers (stand up Texas Chainsaw Massacre). Yet, despite Romero's input, the film is still just not terribly good.
The main problem with this remake, in my opinion, is the new portrayal of the characters. In the first film, you could sympathise with, to some degree, all these people trapped in the farmhouse, you felt sorry for them, and understood their actions because of the predicament that was facing them. In the remake, they're all a bunch of whiny bitchers, and any remaining sympathy is gone; every single one of them is shown to have a mean or annoying streak a mile wide and it comes as something of a releif when one of them gets killed. Also gone is any semblance of intelligence: what kills the characters in this remake is, more often than not, their own stupidity. Maybe that's the point, but still, it makes you feel as if they deserved to die, not something good for character empathy, which is a nesscessary ingredient of a horror movie.
The ending, too was a dissapointment, especially compared to the extremely downbeat, depressing ending of the original. That ending left you with a feeling of hopelessness and a question mark over the fate of humanity. The new ending leaves you with little doubt over how humanity will fair in the struggle against the undead: We'll win, no question.
My final major gripe with this movie is with the zombies themselves. In the original, they were terrifying and mysterious, unstoppable killing machines. In the remake, they seem comically weak and monumentally useless. As Barbara says at one point (an intensely annoying version of the original character, by the way, i spent the entire movie hoping her fate would be the same as that of the original): "they're so slow... we could just walk past them, we wouldn't even have to run.". You see the problem? how are you meant to be afraid of something that couldn't pose a serious threat to a three year old on a trike?
However, despite all the above, and the monotony of some of the zombie attacks (how many times can you watch the undead come smashing through a window the heroes were JUST about to board up? Well, if you want to watch this movie through, make sure it's at least four) Night of the Living Dead the remake is still a watchable film, a much shallower version of the first, that requires much less attention or thought. As a popcorn zombie movie, it works very well, and, it goes without saying, the special effects are quite fantastic for this version, though perhaps not used to their full potential.
Overall, this film is one to watch if your looking for a quick splatter-horror film and is reasonably entertaining. However, if your looking for a horror film with some depth, or one that creates a genuine feeling of unease and tension, then watch the original. There is a reason, afterall, why that is considered a horror classic and this isn't.

Night of the living remake
Ok, this is a rather pointless remake of the original classic. What makes it so bad is that it was directed by Tom Savini, who collaberated with George Romero on "Dawn of the Dead" and Day of the Dead". Savini, a noted make-up artist specializing in gore and blood, left this movie pretty dry. The plot is the same, a group of strangers are wholed up in a farm house that is besieged by zombies. There are no big stars here, except Tony Todd, who went on to be the Candyman. He is obviously the hero, or so you'd think. The end is different, and not for the better. The acting is pretty wooden, but you were expecting that, weren't you? The gore is graphic, but like I said, I was expecting more from Savini. The moral of the story is pounded home too hard. But it's fair, and not too long, so it's barable. It is a good movie, just not great. I only wish that they would stop remaking the classics and give Romero the money to do the fourth 'Dead' movie. ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Exciting Cyber-Adventure
The return of the Cybermen after their misuse in Revenge of theCybermen is a moody, exciting adventure that contains moment aftermoment of brilliance. The acting is sound on all levels, with special credit due Peter Davison, whose performance raises the tension level as his realization of the true purpose of certain events adds to the overall mood of the piece. The redesign of the Cybermen was criticized by some, but the see-through mouthpiece adds to the effect of the Cybermen's menace, rather than detracting, by allowing us to see the transformed humanity within the outfit. This is one of the best ones to show to new Doctor Who viewers, as it is accessible to those who've never seen a Cyberman adventure, and has high emotional moments -- especially the ending, which works on every level. One of Davison's best by far, and definitely one of the best Cyber-Adventures. A must-own. Now if only they'd get rid of that ridiculous vunerability to gold, everything would be fine. It works here as a plot point, but nowhere else. Enjoy!

"What are they?" "Cybermen!"
A great return for these foes of the Doctor. Emotionless, relentless and determined to destroy all life on Earth (surprise, they succeed). Yes, you need to get over the bad effects and sometimes horrific acting-- much like the old serials of the 30s and 40s, your imagination does a lot of work. This is a fast-paced and exciting story with a lot of memorable moments-- the Cybermen revealed, Cyber Leader in the Tardis, the race to save Adric. Best line: "It might interest you to know we've traveled backwards in time some 65 million years. Think about it."

Man and the Cyberman
This serial of Dr. Who brought back my favorite menace - the Cybermen. Not seen for years since "Revenge of the Cybermen" (1975, during the Tom Baker years), the Cybermen have a new look and a new plan. Using a bomb set deep within Earth, they will destroy the planet as its government is prepared to host an interplanetary summit aimed at - among other things - an alliance against evils like the Cybermen. Unfortunately for them, their plan is discovered by The Doctor who luckily (for us) materializes on the scene in his space-time ship (the "TARDIS"). With their initial plan foiled, the Cybermen switch gears and hit on a new idea. They hijack a huge cargo spaceship carrying a veritable army of Cybermen (originally intended to hold what's left of Earth when the bomb explodes), and aim it at Earth like a bomb. Tracing the source of the signal, the Doctor lands on the freighter and battles the Cybermen alongside a pitiful band of human soldiers and the ship's crew. With his companions - the boy genius Adric, the young but wise Nyssa and the tough but lovely Tegan Jovanka - the Doctor fights a seeming losing battle against the horde of Cybermen holding the ship.

This was a great episode on so many levels. The redesigned Cybermen - see-through mouth-grille and all - are an improvement over the silver-wetsuits of "Revenge", and the script plays up on their strengths: their numbers and seemingly boundless cool and aggression. Cheesy camera work exaggerates their numbers by having the image of a single column of Cybermen "multiplied" within a single shot - but we get the point. ("Who" fans who can't appreciate the "see-through mouth" because we now know that there are people behind the masks, are missing the point - the Cybermen aren't machines, they are mechanized people, the prototypes for the Borg. We always knew that there was a person behind the mask, but the grille still hides what that person must look like after being "assimilated". Also, individual Cybermen are more vulnerable here than they were in "Revenge" (their huge numbers wouldn't be as important if they were as bulletproof as they were in that story). The scene introducing the Cybermen is perfect - with the cold invaders huddled like a coven of witches around a holographic viewer. (They don't recognize the Doctor at first, but his spaceship tips them off) Of course the biggest thing about this story is the end of Adric - there are hints of his leaving from the start of the serial, but the final moments are unforgettable anyway.

IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN AN EPISODE OF DOCTOR WHO none of the above will make much sense (a man - a "timelord" actually - who changes his appearance every few years, traveling across space and time in a ship looking on the outside like a London police call box, accompanied by a constantly changing cast of companions and battling a wide array of menaces both alien and human). Still, some episodes embody a sort of humanity that rises above the kooky continuity of the show, and this is one of them, so it's worth a look. The tragic ending underscores the entire series - times runs out, even for timelords.

CLASSIC! Considering who wrote it, this one really is good.
Episode 1 alone is overall terrific. Mysterious caves being guarded for some important reason, Adric bickering, the androids' way of killing people, this is a very taut and exciting episode. There is some rubbish technobabble about the device used to track the people in the caves, but otherwise this episode hangs together extremely well. As for the cliffhanger, it was a jaw-dropper in 1982 and still holds up exceptionally well.

Episode 2 isn't quite as tense, but still easily manages to retain excitement and interest despite a silly claim about the TARDIS' capabilities and how the main enemies in this story can see into the future where they go over the Doctor's bio/history record. But that is a small point. The moment leading to the cliffhanger is reasonably excellent as well.

Episode 3 is now a full shift away from the wonderful claustrophobia of the caves of the first 1.5 episodes. The freighter's interior is extremely well realized considering the show's budget (or even on a big movie budget, they got everything RIGHT) and provides some great tension for more than one gripping scene. The cliffhanger, despite using a prismatic lens to make one row of enemies look like 3 rows, packs a decent punch as well. I won't mention how kewl it was to see how the Doctor deals with the enemy force about to break into the freighter's bridge... So far, the story is worth all of the praise it gets.

Episode 4 is awesome, though the ending is flaky. The ending involves the freighter entering time travel, which seems to be cheaply written in as an afterthought. The reasons behind the ability of the freighter to do this don't cut it and they could have used some flimsy technobabble about the warp engines being the cause instead of the enemy machinery locking the ship's directional control panel. But that's one small point.

Episode 4 does end with another big surprise that you, depending on your point of view, will like...

The story was augmented with modern computer effects. I prefer the original effects, even if they are different than what was intended to be (for example, a spaceship exploding instead of crashing, though it can be said the spaceship exploded in the planet's atmosphere...).

I expect that the video and audio quality will be comparable to the other Dr Who releases (except "The Key to Time", which the UK Restoration Team did not work on). I gather the soundtrack is isolated, which is another BIG plus.

One of my big problems with 80s Dr Who is not as much JNT but Saward. Even from his earliest penned story "The Visitation", Saward loves using gore. Indeed, in "The Visitation" he wanted to have the remains of the smouldering murdered family to be shown, but the director had enough guts to show well orchestrated fade-in clips of the empty house's interior that was far more effective... Fortunately, we're still in the 5th Doctor's early run so it's not so pronounced (by Davison's final year, Saward - both as writer and script editor - went out his way to ensure pointless gore was used. But that's another story...) The only real gore in this episode is how the androids kill people (the people turn into a liquified state which is horrific yet doesn't go out of its way to be shock value. In other words, it's appropriate and maturely handled and properly tells us that the androids doing the killing shouldn't be reckoned with... (in later years (Davison's final year and to an extent Colin Baker's first year), the gore was haphazardly thrown in, with any true atmosphere chucked out the window in name of sleazy shock value. Colin's era did match gore with a coherent intent, but the purpose seemed to be excessive, resulting in the gore being just as pointless as in the prior season...)

But I digress. This is a WONDERFUL story, worthy of 5 stars and is ideal for showing to any potential fan. Also, the enemy I spoke of is the Cybermen. They were created in 1966 and had been disused since 1974. As the story was made 7 years later, it was deemed that they should be re-introduced with as little fanfare as possible. And it worked. and it worked so well that subsequent viewings don't wear the concept down. For a producer maligned with the stigma that he loved using continuity, the continuity works well in this story as it reminds of previous Cybermen history to whet our appetites (later stories merely use continuity to bury storylines, but Earthshock tells a story and uses references in a way that expands one's interest to become a fan, and doesn't pander to fans (who'd only nitpick any inaccuracies in continuity).

The Cybermen were organic creatures who replaced more of their limbs and organs with technology. They're like the Borg, only they'd been around long before the Borg were. And "Earthshock" is possibly the best story they're used in, apart from "The Tomb of the Cybermen". ("Tomb"'s plot is superlative but I don't think it was carried out well, apart from episodes 1 and 4. There are some great performances, but the technobabble is grating, episode 3 is pure pointless padding, and the inclusion of Toberman as an indentured servant of all things is boggling, why couldn't he be an equal? On the other hand, his contributions to the end of that story prove he is the most human of them all... and as "Tomb" had also been released on DVD, it's worthy of pick-up as well.)

Why did it take so long to get to US? WB or BBC problem?
I don't know why it took so long to get to the US but it's been out in Region 2 format (PAL) since last year. At any rate, this is the best Doctor Who DVD made to date. Its has full cast commentary by the stars as well as a well made documentary on the makings of "Earthshock" 20 odd years later. This is a must have for all Peter Davison fans. Lastly, the Cybermen's recount of the past Doctors is a real treat. Five stars. Keep it coming BBC... ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Just Old Classics
If you've ever watched MAD TV, they do some spoofs off of this series, which include many of the "problems" named in some of the above reviews.

The skit has horrible acting, silly rhymes, stupid villains, an unsteady camera, and just overall... heh, you get the point. Collector shows such as these sometimes get their "fame" on these grounds.

I cannot exactly recommend this, though =)

Must Have for Cheesy movie night
Ok I think this is really a horrible movie. The plot is the pimp drug dealer gets freed from jail to get a worse pimp drug dealer.

This is the primer for our cheesy movie night because no matter what we watch after this one it has to be better and usually is.

THe action sequences are horribly choreographed. the plot is horrendous. But somehow Dolemite seems to be abe to rhyme all his lines. This is probably not the movie for everyone and if you have never seen Dolemite before I would recommend renting it before you buy it to see if it is something you want in your collection. As for me I take the good with the bad.

The Greatest
This is a wonderful idea. To buy them all together not only saves money, but it will be easlier to keep together. ... Read more

Reviews (375)

There's No More Room in Hell, So the Dead Now Walk the Earth
1978's DAWN OF THE DEAD is the second entry in George Romero's "DEAD" trilogy, though it isn't as scary or as groundbreaking as his first, the classic NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968). Still, for a low-budget sequel, it is an interesting and entertaining film, an unusual mix of action, drama, comedy, and horror that actually functions on two levels: One, it is a stomach-churning study of the depths to which people will sink in order to ensure their survival; and two, it is a dark satire that takes several pokes at Western consumerism.

The plot of DAWN OF THE DEAD builds on the premise of its predecessor. The world is now becoming overrun with the flesh-eating zombies, and in the United States, martial law has been declared and all survivors are required to go to state-run "rescue stations" for shelter and protection. The manager of a TV station and her helicopter-pilot boyfriend decide to defy authorities and seek out their own save haven, and two police officers--friends of the helicopter pilot--decide to abandon their duties and go along with the couple. The group eventually arrives at an abandoned shopping mall, and when they realize that the stores within contain all they need to survive--food, clothing, and weapons & ammunition--they seal off the building, dispose of most of the zombies inside, and take up residence. But when their claim on the mall and its goods is challenged by a band of motorcycle-riding marauders, the quartet is soon fighting for survival against not only the zombies, but also against their own kind.

Although the audience has been made to sympathize with the film's four protagonists, there is no true heroism in this world of Romero's making. Instead, there are only different levels of self-interest and narcissism. After the four move into their new home and start living off the "fat of the mall," they quickly develop a sort of bourgeois attitude towards the comforts they now enjoy. Of course, that is exactly the Western attitude that Romero is ridiculing--that sense of security and satisfaction one feels after amassing material goods. And when the group's right to possession is violently challenged by outsiders, Romero clearly demonstrates just how tenuous a security based on personal possessions really is.

Romero is a master storyteller who knows how to manipulate the emotions of his audience. In this film, he creates a relentless sense of unease by juxtaposing the repulsive and grotesque with the lighthearted and humorous. For example, when the quartet of protagonists first occupies the mall, they turn on the mall-wide Muzak system to mask from the zombies the noises they make while looting the stores. So for several scenes there is this macabre contrast between bloody, pasty-faced zombies and syrupy instrumental music. Uncomfortably comical and humorously disturbing.

Creepy, bloody (FX by Tom Savini), boisterous, and constantly full of surprises, DAWN OF THE DEAD is easily one of the most entertaining zombie movies ever made. True, it does have an underlying anti-materialism message that is none too subtle, but that doesn't detract in the least from the enjoyment of being playfully spooked and repulsed by all the zombie grotesquerie. All in all, horror fans will have a good time watching this minor Romero masterpiece.

The Divimax Edition DVD from Anchor Bay offers an excellent digital transfer of the U.S. theatrical cut (often considered superior even to the director's cut), and there are lots of cool extras, too, not the least of which is a feature commentary with writer/director Romero and FX man Savini. A worthy addition to the film collections of serious horror fans, and well worth amazon.com's very reasonable asking price.

Dawn Of The Dead Is A True Horror Masterpiece!
An intense and overlooked horror classic, George A. Romero's "Dawn Of The Dead", the second and most popular in his Dead trilogy, is probably his most epic tale to date. Regarded by many, including Roger Ebert, as the ultimiate definition in horror films, "Dawn" is truly the thinking man's horror movie. Its horror is far more subtle than that of in-your-face suspense films like "Halloween" or "Exorcist" or for that matter, Romero's first Dead film, "Night". Where most slasher films provide those quick thrills that make us jump but dissapear from our memory almost as quickly as they appeared, "Dawn" creeps into our fears and shows us a view of our downfall as a civilazation.

"Dawn" centers around four survivors, two Philadelphia S.W.A.T. members and a couple from a newstation, who are trying to escape a zombie plague that has engulfed the country. The film opens with chaos ensuing as a handful of newscasters attempt unsuccesfully to put together an emergency broadcast. We move forward to a project house where the tenants are protecting the undead because as one of the central characters explains, "They still believe there is honor in being dead". Guns blaze as seemingly more humans are taken down than actual zombies courtesy of a SWAT team bigit who goes buckwild but ends up getting his before the smoke clears.

As the violence in the city seems to be piling up, our four characters use the local news chopper to escape to the country side where the situation isn't any less of a problem though a handful of trigger-happy rednecks seem to be having a great time with their beers and shotguns. After a brief touchdown at said location where the group runs into a few problems with both the zombies and each other while gassing up their helicopter, they head back up into the sky and eventually land at a shopping center, the film's cental location.

Placing the story at a mall makes for not only a unique and creative backdrop but also allows for Romero to provide an intriguing social commentary on the madness of consumerism that seemed to sweep the late 70's. The zombies who try to break into the center are portrayed as people who loved shopping there so much in life that all they want to do is be there after death.

Romero and make-up effects wizard, Tom Savini are at the most sadistic during the concluding act of this film as our heroes do battle with another band of survivors, a motorcycle gang who shows up and tries to take over the mall for themselves. The zombies, who prior to this were pretty much an afterthought regain their power because their human counterparts are far too busy with each other to notice that they are regaining control of the place. Savini's graphic make-up effects really make for a great finale.

"Dawn Of The Dead" is very much a different film from "Night Of The Living Dead". "Dawn" takes a far different approach to the "dead taking over the world" concept that George helped create in "Night". The mall setting is far less clostrophobic than the farmhouse in the original but it is the nightmare outside that our characters must deal with. In "Night", it was all about getting past the problem that lie in front of them and it's smooth sailing. In "Dawn", the problem is almost reversed. They are safe inside their location, though their safety is an illusion, and it is the outside world that is coming in. They don't want to get away. The outside world is falling apart and the mall is almost a false symbol of protection.

"Dawn" probably will not be an instant overnight favorite. I, myself, was expecting a much different movie than the one I watched. Having caughts bits and pieces of "Day" before I actually sat down to watch it, I was expecting it to have more of the look and feel that I associated with that movie. I honestly didn't know what to make of the weird clothing, the Smurf-blue make-up effects, and the strange Goblins music that popped up through out the film. Within two weeks of watching it, it had become one of my favorite films. All these weird visuals that I found strange actually kept dragging me in over and over again. Though the film is over 25 years old, I can still honestly say that there are very few films of any genre that resemble it.

THE BEST ZOMBIE MOVIE EVER!!! AT LAST!!!
A four disc edition? Who can ask for more? Obviously we saw it coming... the remake was there... the Divimax edition early this year... everybody was saying a big multi-disc edition was coming... and here it is!

To start analyzing this film we must take a look at NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. This film was a landmark as it introduced the zombies as we know today. Now, DAWN OF THE DEAD set a new landmark. In it, the zombies were a mature (sub)genre in modern cinema.

What makes this film so important? Everything! First it is the brilliant screenplay. The story... you already know: as the zombie population increases more and more, four people barricate themselves inside a big shopping mall, where they endulge themselves with all consumering desires they can think of.

Sounds simple? It is, but there is more than meets the eye: as the zombies try to get in (you'll have to wonder why) the four heroes inside discover their paradise makes them more empty than they would have thought it would... and slowly, life start making no sense.

DAWN OF THE DEAD is the kind of film that has been changing as the decades pass. Its violence seems to have softened if we think of all the action and horror films who came in the decades that followed (just like it happened with other horror landmarks like THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, FRIDAY THE 13TH, HALLOWEEN and NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD). Its makeup is not comparable to the vast majority of horror films that came after (who had bigger makeup budgets)... but on the other hand, elements like tension, drama, character development and social critique have all grown more powerful then in all of the films that followed.

In other words, audiences who see this film today, many times discover the fact that its weight is changing fields... from graphic horror to social horror. And this kind of horror is no less potent and much more rare.

Mr. Romero is one of those rare horror screenwriter/directors who do have a strong critic point of view (and we can see it as he continues to deliver so in his later third zombie film - the sadly underated gem - DAY OF THE DEAD).

Clearly, this is a multi-layered film that demands multiple levels of reading. You must be aware of all the issues put inside this film. Otherwise, if you're in just for the cheap thrills, gore and violence, you'll probably be disappointed.

As a product of the late seventies, this is a production triumph because it manages to deliver a lot with minimum budget. The remake released early this year made a great update on this basic premisse.

I loved them both.

This edition seems to be more than we've all asked for (now that the simpler Divimax edition made all the money it could...). Here, you'll find all the versions and lots of extras.

But again... DAWN OF THE DEAD is a film that I am sure will be seen and celebrated for years to come. See it with an open mind and you too will discover why.

DAWN OF THE DEAD
A GREAT ZOMBIE MOVIE AND SEQUEL TO NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. THIS IS A MUST HAVE FOR ANYONE WHO ENJOYS GUT RIPPING,FLESH TEARING ZOMBIE FILMS.VERY WELL DONE AND ACTED WITH LOTS OF GORE.ANOTHER MASTERPIECE FROM GEORGE ROMERO. GET IT!!!! A++++

Can't Wait
I must be honest, I almost got tricked into buying the DiviMax edition aswell, but after taking a look at what features it had on it and hearing rumours about this four-disc edition, I decided not to bother. All in all by looking at the cover art and reading about what will be on it, I believe that this edition will be a great buy for the month of September and for any Dead fan out there and, hopefully it will be the last edition for this particular movie. I can just see it now, six months from now, brand new "SIX DISC" Special Edition, that would be quite a sight . ... Read more

Description

Radiation nil, oxygen normal, pressure normal, yet London is deserted, with no sign of life and no sense of normality. Exploring the decaying city sometime after 2164AD, the Doctor and his companions soon learn that it is not as empty as it seems. The Daleks - far from having been destroyed on Skaro - have conquered the world. Nearly wiped out by storm and plague, the Earth's population has been commandeered by the Daleks into huge mining operations. Some humans have suffered the further indignity of being transformed into Robomen to serve the Daleks in their diabolical plans. Humanity's only hope for survival lies with a small band of resistance fighters who need all the help they can get. ... Read more

Reviews (112)

A very fine war epic
I first saw this movie (albeit in TV-edited version) as a child and knew right away that this was one of the finest war films I had ever seen. As a WWII buff, I had read many books and seen many war films, and Cross of Iron (the movie) was one of the more satisfying (and horrifying!) accounts of the war.

Sam Peckinpah's directing is superb in this film. Coburn's Sergeant Steiner, who is just trying to survive and keep alive the men who follow him, versus the incompetent Captain Stransky (Maximillian Schell) who is on the Eastern Front only because he wants to win the Iron Cross, Germany's military award for valor in combat - makes for a very tense atmosphere throughout the movie. The viewer ultimately sides with Coburn's character, and can't help but feel outrage when Stransky deliberately tries to hang Steiner's men out to dry as the order to retreat is given, and Stransky does not pass along the order to Steiner.

The battle scenes were magnificent, the best I had seen until "Saving Private Ryan" came along. You got a glimpse of the sheer terror the German soldiers must have felt when facing one of the Russians' human wave charges. The T-34 tanks used by the Russians appear authentic, unlike the substitutes used in many war films (see: Battle of the Bulge). This film is a must-see for anyone interested in WW2. It is unfortunate that so few films were made about the Russian Front. The Soviet Union did more to bring down the Nazi regime than the rest of the Allies combined. 90 percent of all battle casualties suffered by the Germans in the war happened on the Russian Front.

The part of the movie that really grabbed me, however, was the beginning. While German children sing a song to the tune of "Lightly Row, Sweetly Row", images are shown of battle, death and the Holocaust - a wrenching juxtaposition of childhood innocence and the horrifying extents of man's inhumanity to man.

Dirty Harry -- in feldgrau.
"Cross of Iron" is a bad movie, made with preconcieved notions that do not fit history or reality. It makes the double mistake of A) cramming an American-style character (the lone wolf anti-hero) into a German uniform and B) tacking the director's well-known appetite for blood and graphic violence to a silly antiwar message.

The movie follows the conflict between an embittered and defiant combat soldier named Stiener (played by James Coburn) and his new CO, a glory-seeking martinet named Stransky (played by Maximillian Schell). From the git-go, the movie follows every stale antiwar convention in the book: the bitter, insubordinate sergeant with an unspoken love for his men vs. the bloodthirsty killer-officer who wants to win a medal and doesn't care how many men die in the process. We've seen this in numerous American war movies, but it never quite works in German unfiorm. This wasn't a democracy; discipline in the Wehrmacht, particularly during the period in questoon, was severe and the slightest defeatism or insubordination were ruthlessly punished. The scene, for example, where Stiener berates and threatens a replacement soldier who is a Party member would probably never have happened. By late 1943 even officers were being degraded and sent off to suicide-squad 'punishment battalions' for minor transgressions or seditious statements. In reality, a soldier like Stiener would have most likely been shot, sent to a military prison or killed off digging up land mines in a penal outfit. The "lone wolf" mentality was simply not tolerated in the German army of 1943 (in Sajer's "Forgotten Soldier" a lieutenant is demoted to corporal and sent to the punishment squad for losing his field telephone when he swam the 900-yard Don River...what would have happened to Stiener for mouthing off to the colonel?).

Additionally, we have more sterotypes: the loveable but doomed men of Stiener's squad, including the "I have dead meat written all over me" teenage boy, the evil Party member, the cowardly lieutenant, the well-meaning but ultimately hapless senior officers (played by James Mason and David Warner) and the obligatory scene where we find out that the Russians are people too. Really, the film is very similar in structure to a Dirty Harry movie: the lone-wolf anti-hero who scorns medals and glory, the pencil-pushing politician/boss, and nice-guy dead-meat partner, the ultimate hollow victory....blah blah blah.

"Cross of Iron" is undermined by the love of cruelty that Sam Peckinpah was rightly infamous for. Graphic violence certainly has its place in a war movie, but as usual, Peckinpah felt the need to cram the viewer nose-first into buckets of human gore. This cheapens the antiwar theme of the movie; viciousness is fine so long as it is committed by the hero, but dastardly if if perpetrated by the villain. Morally, the massage of the movie is unclear: Stiener does not avenge the death of the innocent young soldier by the Russian POW women, but later brutally kills his own lieutenant for shooting others of his squad. Then, when confronting Stransky, who actually gave the order by blackmailing the cowardly lieutenant, he does not kill him but gives him a chance to "show that Prussians can fight." Okay, Stiener is probably insane by the end of the film, but none of this made sense to me. In Peckinpah's mind, the trembling lieutenant deserves to die more than Stransky, because he's afraid and "just wants to go home" wheras Stransky, while evil, deserves to live because he is not a hypocrite: he is willing to kill and allow others to be killed for his Iron Cross, but is also willing to fight himself. Maybe Peckinpah's theme was that war is unfair. So it all balances out, I guess?

I guess not. "Cross of Iron" is a chronically over-rated war movie that bludgeons the viewer with Americanized themes, graphic violence, and a hypocritical antiwar message, brought to you by a director who idolized violent men. As entertainment it is a matter of taste, but as historical fiction, it is nonsense.

Peckinpah's last triumph
Sam Peckinpah, in his 1977 effort "Cross of Iron", darred to look at the war throught German eyes. Thus becoming one of the handful of directors with the audacity to view the German soldiers as a humans, and not as faceless barbarians. Based upon a novel by Willi Heinrich, Cross of Iron is the tale of Steiner, and his troops fight for survival on the Taman peninsula in 1943. Thought it is not near the final stages of the war as many believe, the film depicts the turning of the tables in favor of the Soviets; after the losses at Stalingrad and Kursk. This gritty, unflinching and realistic portrail of combat on the eastern front, seems more stunning if you keep in mind the budget restraints. Authentic in almost every aspect, all the vehicles, weaponry and uniforms all flawless. The Wehrmacht soldiers are dirty and unreasted as they would be during uncessant battle, unlike many a war film which have the soldiers clean and proper. Also during filming, Soviet T-34 tanks acquired from the Czech Republic, were administered during a skirmish. At the time Peckinpah was addicted to coccain and was an alcoholic, yet through all the self-inflicted harm of his reckless life style, his directing capability remained unscathed. The Sam we know from the "Wild Bunch" and "Straw Dogs" is still here, with the slow-motion seens of carnage and his trademark "zooms". But aside from his usual hallmarks, he also give use a personal view of combat. Sam doesn't want to be a spectator, he wants to be a participant, and in doing so he lets us experience the noise, confusion and horror of the Russan front. The film though however great, is not without flaws. First off the casting is questionable, James Mason, David Warner and James Coburn seem somewhat out of place. Being either American of British they could have made a more conscious effort to sustain a fluent german accent. There also is some scenes, a lack of light, which can cause some confusion. Still Sam Peckinpah has left us with an enduring and powerful statement about war, honor, survival and friendship in a world gone mad.

The Idiot: Simon Gurney
I disagree entirely with what that idiot simon gurney said. I read the novel and have seen the film, and not only is it a faithful adaptation, but the few changes which are made only ameliorate the story. I find your comment on the quality of the action scenes offensive. Perhaps you could offer me an example of better ones in a war film. Maybe if you werent so ignorant to history, you could tell just how well done those scenes are, they convey perfecly the madness, and confusion of the desperate days of the Third Reich. I do not think it is proper for you to to critize a film which you yourself have yet to watch in its entirety. I hope others will not be fooled by your groundless comments, thus missing one of the few great war films.

Not exactly a classic, but better than most WW2 films
I would rate it 3.5 stars, because it's better than average as compared to other ww2 films however there are a few small problems I have with this movie. First off, the opening minutes contain scenes of implied homosexulaity between the german soldiers. I'm not sure the accuracy of this, although no doubt it probably did happen, but seems to be a fairly important point thoughout parts of this movie. If this is supposed to further convince the audience of the depraved nature of the soldiers, it works in that regard but it is quite obvious that they are depraved anyway and that added nothing to the storyline nor to the plot.

The other problem I have is, although most of the battle scenes contain close to accurate german and russian weapons, the overhead bombing scenes contain shots of U.S. navy corsairs dropping bombs. These were probably stock footage taken from a navy film and look horribly out-of place here.

But despite those two issues, most of the rest of the movie is good and portrays an accurate, interesting and engaging portrait of battle in the russian theatre during ww2. I especially liked the use of light as most of the battle scenes were shot as daytime attacks and that indeed was the way it happened on the russian front. The sneak attack at the bridge by Steiner's platoon was filmed and sequenced to show all of the moves by the attackers, leaving nothing hidden or off camera. Certainly an interesting way to portray this kind of sequence and it came out quite effectively.

Sam Peckinpah uses the slow motion to good effect and has indeed changed the face of war films circa 1977. Every war movie that was released after this movie tends to show a more grimmer and graphic view of war and that is certainly how it should be done as there is nothing glorious or heroic about war. Those are the words used by the politicians that order people to fight each other to the death.

Great casting, excellent camera work and a good story combined with music that adds a sense of innocence lost and horror to the subject, all ad up to not quite a classic but a very good depiction of ww2 battle action in the Russian theatre. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Dark Yarn With Dragging Coffins EASTER EGG and tech specs
This DVD came with The Spaghetti Western Collection. I simply didn't relate to the characters as most others seem to have. My enjoyment of the movie was limited by the lack of what I felt was a thoughtful score. Maybe I'm so used to Ennio Morricone's moving scores, as they seem to fit movies like another character. I wasn't impressed with the composition by Luis Enriquez Bacalov, whose music starts the title off. I don't know, maybe I don't care for lyrics. I guess lyrics shouldn't be used if the story is well- told in the movie.

This movie is quite dark and opens to some intense beating of a woman. Django is also dragging a coffin through mud towards a bleak- looking town where havoc eventually fills the streets which were emptied by the numerous killings.

I would lie to give it 4 stars because the music to me detracts from the movie. And the English dubbing just adds to not help me identify with the characters like I'd enjoy. Other macaroni flicks have gotten me to feel something for the characters, but something was missing here. I couldn't even feel for the woman being tortured (Loredana Nusciak). Yet for a movie like The Good The Bad and The Ugly, I could even identify with Al Mulock's character at the very beginning (the bounty killer whose head fills the screen from a once- empty desert scene). I would give it a very average score and tack on just a smidgen more for the DVD quality presented by Blue Underground, which is consistent with the other nice presentations they have distributed.

Tech Specs and Easter Eggs: Region- free NTSC DVD from a 90- minute master print, in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.66:1 (only) and enhanced for 16X9; English mono and Italian mono with optional English subtitles; Django: The One and Only interviews; trailer; movie poster/production stills photos; linear notes; a two- page double- sided pamphlet with more detailed notes. I also found only one Easter Egg (I have found up to 3 in two other DVDs by Blue) which can be accessed by going to the Extras page, higlighting Django - The One and Only and then pressing LEFT on your remote to access a hidden feature.

A guy who loves spaghetti westerns is disapointed
Too many Corbucci films are inept, sloppy, and cartoonish. Speed Racer can be less cartoonsish. (see Navajo Joe). Django is not the worst but it is also no exception.
Two clever ideas in the film - a laconic anti-hero drags around a coffin with a machine gun inside
and a showdown in a graveyard with an interesting use of a cross.
That's it.
Otherwise -
Silly unconvincing action scenes - Django holds off dozens of incredibly stupid bad guys by sitting behind a log in the middle of a street. No one thinks to come up from the sides and behind?
Bad guys come off like Snidely Whiplash. And this may be insulting to poor Snidely.
The editing is uninspired.
Continuity errors (for some inexplicable reason a unconsious woman keeps changing positions on bridge - this is actually funny)
The violence and action are unrealistic and stupid. Just because Tarantino may have borrowed the infamous ear-eating scene does not make the movie any better. Incidentally the ear looks like a fig, and the scene is even sillier with the inane acting and dubbing involved.
Franco Nero's understated anti-hero style acting is completely ruined be hokey dialogue and a dubbed voice that sounds like Casper Milquetoast.
Worst of all - there is no film-making-style, especially for a spaghetti western.
Anchor Bay's version looks and sounds only OK but I doubt the film ever looked or sounded very good.
Quality spaghetti westerns can be very engaging but its hard to understand why this one was so popular Maybe it comes off better dubbed into German - for some reason it was very popular in Germany.
I gave this film two stars but not for its merits but for its place in history as being the predecessor of many other far superior spaghetti westerns. Had the sound, picture, dialgue and dubbing quality been better I may have squeezed out three stars.

Django lives
I'd heard lots about this film over the years but was unable to see it until a few years ago. It has the usual flaws of a spaghetti western (poor dubbing, choppy editting and almost silly lyrics for the title song), which are to be expected,and after having seen so many, are even endearing, but its quirkiness more than makes up for it. (Any film with the main character constantly dragging a coffin behind him in the mud has a certain deviant appeal.) Excepting the Leone westerns (which are so far above the ordinary Italian western that they are literally in a class by themselves), this is one of the best.

Django is djust dreadful
I head a lot of good things about this -- comparisons to Leone's films and that it was so popular it spawned a horde of sequals. I had contemplated buying the Anchor Bay DVD, and upon viewing, I'm so glad I didn't. Franco Nero is absolutely dreadful -- i'm not sure if he or the dubbing is to blame but the delivery and dialogue are some of the worst I've ever witnessed. The character is such a goody goody with lines like, "You shouldn't treat women like that" and "That's not right." To compare this to Leone is to reduce Leone's interesting characters and cinematography into cardboard gunfights. I didn't even finish the film.

Corbucci's best film!
Don't listen to any claims made made for Bullet For A General, Django is without a doubt the best non-Leone spaghetti Western of all time. The opening scene (blue-clad Nero carrying a saddle over his shoulder and dragging a coffin through the gooiest mud in film history)is beautiful. Corbucci's direction is more controlled here than anywhere else--less zooms, less jarring close-ups, and neater editing. And Django has to be one of the first action heroes to fire a heavy machine gun from the hip (without even pulling the trigger, no less!).

But make no mistake. This is Italian exploitation--love it or hate it. An ear is cut off, prostitutes fight in the mud, and our hero's hands are crushed in gory detail that would make One-Eyed Jacks mumble in disgust. Don't expect John Ford here. But if you're looking for something different, are curious about spaghetti Westerns but afraid to buy any because so many are horrible--then this is the movie for you! ... Read more

Reviews (20)

A Spy/Caper Classic
What is with some of these reviewers? Don't they get it? How can you compare this movie to Austin Powers or to Rambo or Ninjas? Who knew what a ninja was in 1966? This is a cool, classic, campy 60's caper movie. Who cares what Diabolik really is? He's cool as hell! That outfit. That Jag. Think of all the other 60's spy-isms that are present...The secret hideaway, the trippy spy-rock (great Ennio Morricone music) the bizarre sets, the psychedelic atmosphere. This movie's influence is all over (i.e. fellow gen x-ers - remember the video game SPY HUNTER?). This flick is right up there with Ipcress File, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger and The Pink Panther as a classic of the brezzy/cool 60's spy/caper genre.

This movie is so bad it's terrific!
Danger: Diabolik is one of those rare movies where situations and characters are so completely ludicrous that you'll end up in the emergency room being treated for cracked ribs and torn abdominal muscles from excessive gleeful laughter.Never mind the movie's presentation on MST3K; on its own Danger: Diabolik is wonderfully entertaining because it tricks your brain into thinking of ways to deride it, and I happen to love films that can do that. One notable cast member is Adolfo Celi, whom James Bond fans will recognize from Thunderball, but he appears here sans eyepatch and speaking with a less-than-amusing voice. Though on this outing while he's not throwing his fellow criminals into shark-infested pools he does have the inclination to drop those who disagree with him through a trap door on his aircraft, thus increasing fuel efficiency and lightening the workload for his ditzy, shapely flight attendant... One of the movie's greatest assets is its soundtrack. It's pure 60's. Listening to it is like taking a trip in a time machine and arriving in some world whose inhabitants did everything they could to brighten it up without all the comforts, gadgets and insights available to today's world. Totally awesome, man! This videotape is recorded in EP mode, so your tracking may need adjusting in order to maintain Stereo-lock. And sadly, it's in pan-and-scan format, so you can't get a really good look at Diabolik's underground lair with its rotating bed, seperate showers, gold-testing workshop, and its many painstakingly-crafted artificial stalactites dripping from the roof of the cavern like the tears of mirth from audience eyes. First-time viewers are in for a treat; repeat viewers will likely end up in the hospital again...

Im a Mister Bava Lova,Mario Bava Superstar!!
Danger:Diabolik is based on the same Comics wich was very cool and Mario bava was the right man for a real action movie on Danger:Diabolik!
The Moviesets he created is so small but they looked like they cost lot of hundredthousand dollars, but the cost in real was maybe 1000 Dollar!??!
Its a great superhero movie with the typically colourimpression of Mario Bava, the master of Italian Cinema and the creator of the Giallo Thrillers.
Danger:Diabolik got some spectaculary and stunning action scenes,good looking chicks and a nice and cute superhero.
Im so happy that this movie was released on DVD!
Are you too?
Buy and you will be!!

Total enjoyment
Once upon a time films were made with low budgets and heaps of imagination, and this is one of them. Though given a whopping $3M by the ego-maniac Dino de Laurentis (King Kong the atrocious remake) the genius Mario Bava brought this 60s beauty in at $400K. Even converted into today's hard currency it would be hard to conceive of a modern day director either struggling out of bed for such a miniscule sum, or ever bringing a film in under budget. Instead Bava treats the eye and the mind to a dazzling psychedelic modernist fantasy.
There seems to be a common notion that many directors of the past were somehow more stupid than the giant intellects of the cinema of today and that they had no comprehension of what they were doing. Bava knew exactly what he was making with this movie version of a popular European comic and that was to make a film that was fun.
Pitted against a world of old stilted politics, bumbling police and chalk-stripe-suited Mafia villains Diabolik, a cool ultra-thief with an underground lair to be envied by Dr No and every other evil genius, outwits his pursuers time and time again with a manic laugh, a delicious girl-friend and his 'n' hers Jaguar E-Types.
This film is a two-hour trip; the score is superb and the images have a vivid organic feel unachievable with today's over-processed CGI FX. If you love the visuals of Barbarella you'll love this. Bava, though, has a more cynical view of the world and in one scene presents us with a nightclub where villains ply the "innocent" hippies with drugs making them dance in hysterically funny ways that is just as an incisive critique of that era as it would be of some rave scenes today. Some things just don't change.
Sure if you want to adopt the brave stance of the post-modernist and assume the sophisticated position of The One Who Laughs At Bad Old Films then you'll get some kind of kick out of this. But you won't get anything like the kick you will by just relaxing into the brilliantly-lit mad world of Mario Bava where nothing is quite what it appears and baddies win - almost.

CHEESY, But from another time!
I really enjoyed this movie! The effects are very dated, but watching it transported me to another time! You can see how different things where just 30 years ago! ... Read more

Amazon.com

An early departure from director David Cronenberg's canon of visceral horror, 1979's Fast Company profiles one of his personal passions, racecars, in a gritty melodrama that also features exciting racetrack footage. Veteran toughguy William Smith is top-billed as a champion drag racer who clashes with the unscrupulous oil-company executive (John Saxon) who sponsors his team. Though lacking the gruesome clinical obsessions of his horror features (Cronenberg admits on the disc's commentary that the film was a tax shelter for its Canadian producers), Fast Company is also fascinated with internal machinery (here, car engines instead of human bodies), and it's easily Cronenberg's most approachable film, with plenty of automotive action alongside the solid performances (the cast includes B-movie queen Claudia Jennings in her final performance). --Paul Gaita ... Read more

Reviews (3)

"I have great affection for this movie." - David Cronenberg
The 2-Disc Limited Edition was purchased impulsively on its street date release, after I saw it staring at me on a shelf at a local retailer. Having greatly enjoyed Rabid, The Brood, Videodrome, and Crash, I had long been curious to see Stereo and Crimes of the Future. Yet having picked it up for Cronenberg's two early features, I was watching Fast Company for the sixth time on Saturday night of that same week.

Phil Adamson (John Saxon): You know you're out of your goddamn mind, Johnson. You're out of your mind, and you're over-the-hill. First you turn my trailer into a goddamn whorehouse, now it's an insane asylum!

John Saxon's villainy as the FastCo oil company rep is hilarious. Aside from the wonderfully written dialogue, his facial expressions and gestures are fantastic. Lonnie "Lucky Man" Johnson's (William Smith) team consists of a Western genre family-like trio, with character names such as Billy the Kid, P.J. and Elder; all wonderful performances. Gary "The Blacksmith" Black (Cedric Smith) is Lonnie's top competitor. He is neither a one-dimensional friend nor foe. His personal team members, known as Stoner and Meatball, are a funny pair. Stoner is likable and not-such-a-bad guy, while Meatball is a classic A-hole. Candy (Judy Foster) is Miss FastCo, a not-so-dumb blonde with feelings for Billy, and who makes an admirable stand when her self-respect is threatened by her employer's demands. William Smith and Claudia Jennings are the long-distance relationship lovers that I, on a personal level, have grown strongly attached to. Both, individually and together, add to the film something magical and nostalgic for me that I find very rare in most movies that I've seen. The scenes involved with them makes me feel like a small boy spending time with a favorite aunt and uncle. Mind you, I come from a Hispanic middle class background.
The cinematographer is largely to thank for capturing the humor of the film, as well as the documentary-like and exciting treatment of the dragsters; not to mention a multitude of highly admirable shots. Also worth mentioning is the work of Art Director Carol Spier, as well as the choices of music that significantly add to this wonderful little film. I have to say that Fast Company has been one of the most delightful surprises that I have encountered on DVD so far this year, along with The Passion of Joan of Arc, Flesh + Blood, Humanité, and Diary of a Country Priest.
Now, about Stereo and Crimes of the Future - after my purchase, I got home as fast as I could, and saw them first. Alas, they did not fully appeal to me, though Cronenberg's aesthetic approach to the storytelling on both, and his very nice camera work, did. I am very glad to have finally seen them, and I do intend to redo so again in the immediate future.
Blue Underground along with the personal supervision of Cinematographer Mark Irwin present an amazing print for a late-Seventies B-movie. The colors and sharpness are outstanding; and the sound is extremely satisfying. David Cronenberg's commentary is both interesting and very pleasing. His own enthusiasm on the film, and at the discovery of the restoration of a thought-to-be lost seen is wonderful. Comments like: "...it's very much me. And I don't think anybody else could have made this movie the way ... that I did." He stumbles at this last comment, probably concerned with sounding egotistical. However, with his style being so distinct along with his input into the script, he has justification to make that statement. Cronenberg also remarks on the commentary: "Worth every penny of it, wasn't it?" I quite agree. And am very pleased to hear a director satisfied with his own work, for a change. This film should appeal to fans of Seventies exploitation and car racing, while bitter and stubborn Cronenberg no-nonsense horror fans might need some lubing, or repeated viewings, to appreciate it for what it is and not for what they want it or expect it to be.

Billy "The Kid" Brooker (Nicholas Campbell): You know something, gang? There's a lot of junk you can put down your pipes, you know what I mean. Now I'm talking about the good stuff. You gotta take care of your baby's engine. So I suggest you go like the pros, and go with FastCo. If you want that power, that performance, and that protection. Yeah. FastCo. This is what all the pro racers use. FastCo Motor Treatment. (Chuckles). All right.

An Experiment in Telepathy
Stereo and Crimes of the Future are among the best underground films produced in North America in the late 60's/early 70's, a time when Kenneth Anger and Martin Scorsese were also making their first films. Thanks to Blue Underground for releasing those two important productions (along with the great Fast Company in a fantastic transfer) in such a classy edition.

May the experiment in telepathy begin...

Heaven bless Blue Underground!
I was lucky enough to catch showings of Stereo and Crimes of the Future at a retrospective of DC's career in Manhattan two summers ago. I've been waiting with fingers crossed for someone to release them on DVD. Blue Underground has proved to be a Godsend for genre fans, and this is no exception. Both films are fascinating early art-projects by Cronenberg that any DC fan will want to have in their collection. They are also pretentious, but this is par-for-the-course for such fare, and is not intended as a condemnation. They are striking, wholly original, and, despite their flaws, provide truly memorable experiences. Cronenberg's genius is on display here in an embryonic but unmistakable manner. It was wonderful of Blue Underground to include these two films on a bonus disc: DC fans have always wanted to see Fast Company, but once the novelty wears off and it is revealed as the mediocre film I suspect it to be, we will have Stereo and Crimes of the Future as recompense for the money we spent. And recompense indeed! ... Read more

Reviews (50)

DARN GOOD MOVIE!!!!!!!!
He's the gentleman who did such a superb performance in Detroit Rock City, now in this movie he plays an aspiring photographer who's work includes everything from a pic of his sexy girl friend, (played by the ravishing Christina Ricci) to photos of the food cooked on the grill where he works. His art evolves around his life in a lower middle class neighborhood in Baltimore Maryland.
Then one day, Pecker (yes that's his name in the movie) holds an exhibit of his work in the grill. Just so happens an expert in photographic art is there and she buys one of the photos then inquires about having him come to New York and exhibit his work there.
Pecker goes to NY, and his exhibit is a success, bringing him instant fame, as well as many of the people he has photographed. But fame has its price, especially when many of the town folk turn against him for making their lives a public display. Lives are transformed, and at the first, in a bad way. His sugar hyper sister is put on medication by Social Services, which puts her in a zombie state, his girlfriend is hounded by "excited" men to the point to where even where she works isn't safe due to pervs who drop in to "display" their activities, and others experience different types of changes. But as the movie proceeds, lives become better for the town folk, as Pecker does another exhibit and exploits the exploiters.
Instead of his hometown people, Pecker shows off photos of the photograph collectors and photographers and others from NY. Now its their turn to learn what its like to have their lives put out for the public to see. In this movie people learn that success has its price, but when you learn how to handle it, it can be a sweet thing.
This film is a mild comedy, with superb dialogue. Actually, the dialogue is inventive, and shows a unique skill. It is also wonderfully cast, with each actor and actress filling his or her role perfectly. Not a cornball movie by a long shot. Sort of fits into the Woody Allen style of Comedy. From time to time it has some strong language, but not overtly, and adult situations.

Relax and enjoy this quirky, special movie
If you keep looking for Divine in every new John Waters film you will surely be disappointed. Divine is gone and cannot be replaced, so why not just relax and enjoy this special little film, with all of it's quirky Baltimore characters and its mild "poking fun at" art and intellectuals. I highly recommend this film. If you miss having something to feel intellectually superior about, you can always see "The Blair Witch Project". If you want to have some fun, see "Pecker"

A must-see for photographers
There's a deeper understanding for this movie from photographers, especially pro-level amateurs who keep a day job to support themselves. Almost anyone familiar with the so-called "art scene" will also find many poignant moments. There's a lot of visual and verbal innuendos, so it's great viewing the second and third time around. John Waters fans will love it.

If we are normal?
If you like Waters, you will like this film. As for the guy who said you won't like this if your "Normal", What is normal again? You? Sorry sir, you have a disorder known as solipsism, where you think the universe actually revolves around your conciousness and "normal" is defined by you. Wake up dude. Normal is relative to perception, a concept you obviously can't grasp. I think this is why you don't like this movie, you couldn't apply it to your "normal" life, which is life where you don't have to think, just process information with mouth hanging open.

If you can think for yourself, watch this film, if you are a slack jawed, drooling fool, find something "Normal".

If you're normal, you'll hate it
Pecker's been out for 5 years and it has a whopping 46 reviews (you're about to read the 47th. That tells you something: The maker of this movie has a following, and