338 Equinox

[Jeff]

Has windowboxing been killed, and the guy responsible, sacked?

I think that it's more likely that the Equinox transfer was done a loooooong time ago, before they started windowboxing. They announced the thing years ago.

[HerrSchreck]

Thanks. I knew I knew something that was keeping me from accepting this disc as evidence that they've abandoned the practice. EQUI is practically a six year old project and I'm sure it is the extras which are the most modern transfers, whereas the films I'd imagine were done at minimum a year ago. That's a very conservative estimate.

[Karva]

DVD Drive-In's review:

http://www.dvddrive-in.com/reviews/e-h/equinox6770.htm

"Not only is this one of the finest DVD releases of the year, Criterion's tribute to “the little monster movie that couldâ€

[ByMarkClark.com]

Thus spake The Beaver:

"Once you get into Equinox, you will remain a fan for life."

Truer words were never spoken.

[Narshty]

Back cover and spine c/o CriterionDVD.com

I've emailed Criterion to thank them for not windowboxing the movie and that I hope it means a return to their former full-screen method of presenting 1.33:1 titles. It's worth a go.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

There's an interview with Dennis Muren on Wired's website: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/video ... culture_12

I finally watched this movie and really enjoyed it. For what it is (a B-monster movie done on the very cheap), it is pretty damn good. I mean, these guys made it for next to nothing over weekends. I think what saves it is that you can tell it was done with a lot of heart. There's a honesty that just isn't there in most big budget monster/horror movies made today.

And I think Muren nails it one of the extras when he talks about how he loves the texture of stop-motion animation. There's a realness that is very tangible and warm unlike CGI which still tends to be distancing and not quite all there. And that's coming from someone who's worked in the best of both technologies.

Anyways, watching Equinox brought me back to Sunday afternoons watching the Creature Double Feature on TV...

[HerrSchreck]

So who else around here bought this? And has received it. And has watched it.

[Morbii]

I bought it, but it's still being shipped...

I'm not gagging for it, really, but hopefully it will be interesting after this whole hubbub about it.

[HerrSchreck]

I'm looking to see if any old hands around here really flip for this flick. I thought I was gonna impulse buy, but I have some investing in music equipment I have to do, so I don't wanta be silly with splurging on what should be rentals at best.

Once again,


or flip for the flick.

[Lino]

DVDTimes reviews it:

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=61940

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I'm looking to see if any old hands around here really flip for this flick. I thought I was gonna impulse buy, but I have some investing in music equipment I have to do, so I don't wanta be silly with splurging on what should be rentals at best.

Once again,


or flip for the flick.

I really, really dug it. As I think I said above, for what it is and for what it is made, it is pretty damn entertaining. Plus, you get to see a young Herb Tarlek get zapped by a monster!

[Gigi M.]

Savant's reviews it:

Rumors circulated a couple of years ago that The Criterion Collection was considering spinning off a second tier label for 'cult' titles. Their work on this wonderful Equinox special edition would seem to make a second label unnecessary -- it presents a practically home-made 1970 horror film in an affectionate and respectful context.

[djali999]

Have just finished watching both versions back to back and I have to say that the differences are illuminating. Having seen the 1970 version on a bootleg a few years ago I thought I had a pretty good memory of it. When I got the DVD today I popped in the '67 version first and it more or less corresponded to my memories of it. I then started watching the 1970 version and just couldn't put it down - it was like watching a train wreck! Just a few differences:

- '70 version tries far too hard to be a 'horror' film by including a needless and silly molestation scene and a bit more gore and shock effects, including the worst (the worst!) possession scene ever. The '67 cut is a fun if awkward monster movie that keeps the ball rolling once it gets on its' feet.

- Woods hits everything on the head far too much. While the '67 cut, less slickly edited, trusted itself that it's plot points would come across, Woods sticks in badly matched footage of possessed cast members mugging awfully for the camera, needless plot points about medallions to protect the kids, and, worst of all, a whole sequence of summoning that wonderful beastie from the DVD cover using footage copped from a previous scene and a bad optical spiral!

- Woods discarded much of the clumsy dialogue and substituted even worse humor and some really pitiful lines. "Let us go find a more wholesome enviroment!"

- The '67 version has some stronger cuts, including the clever destruction of a flying devil which Woods botches by adding close-ups between shots. There's also something to be said for the fact that the 11 minute shorter 1967 cut breezes by, whereas the release version feels like a 2 hour plus demo reel!

- The 1970 version makes mince meat out of a brauvera effects sequence revealing the discovery of the book which includes a wonderful stop motion skeleton!

The changes go on and on, but I was appalled. Watch "The Equinox" first, then go dabble carefully with "Equinox". I loved the '67 version... made me feel like a kid again.

[Doctor Sunshine]

I had a lot of fun with these too but must respectfully disagree with your comparison. First off, they're both train wrecks.

Woods may have molded it into a typical horror structure but it had no structure before that. It was awkward, fumbley and random. There was pleanty of waiting around for scenes to end. It's not without charm but when you have all these great monsters they deserve a build up, we should be made to wait a bit. In fact, I'd say introducing the octopus creature so early was not altogether dissimilar to a premature ejaculation.

He also camped up an already campy film, most notably with his own appearance, but there was plenty of mugging before he ever got involved. And the medallions and frog ring rape certainly pad out the runtime better than some of the things Murren and Co. did. Plus, I think having a central villain and the main character's news anker dub--was that Tom Brokaw?--strengthened the picture. Woods is hardly an artist but he smoothed things out rather well.

So, I actually prefer the 70s cut but in both cases a good time was had. Actually, I think calling it camp does it a disservice, the corny things the kids do are corny in a way actual people are and they're never full on retarded, like in most movies of this type--they all kind of hit the sweet spot somewhere between, say, a Velma and a Shaggy. Overall, everyone involved seems to have used their whole ass. Yes, a good time had by all.

[Narshty]

Even if no-one here is able to attend, I'm still jealous.

[Narshty]

Well, I expected something cheesy, silly, cool, handmade and intriguing, but both versions turned out to be something I never expected: dull. The way I can tell if I really liked a movie or not (aside from the normal feelings) is if I want to watch the extras as soon as it's over. Truth be told, I could hardly be bothered to read the booklet. Lord knows I've been looking forward to this set for years but both movies drained all the enthusiasm right out of me. I'm a big supporter of most of the movies in the collection everyone rallies against - Jubilee, Armageddon, Fiend Without A Face - but I'm at a loss to explain the labour of love lavished over this edition. Actually, I'm not - in many ways, it's a fascinating case study, but of two films that are barely worth the effort.

The 1967 version played out like some sort of inanity endurance test for the most part. Stop motion monsters and forced-perspective hijinks are cool and all (the demon especially) but its hard to get worked up when the bulk of material surrounding them is so punishingly slack and devoid of interest. Even the fight with the Taurus monster (the beastie on the front cover) seemed rather dragged out (about four minutes of a monster stomping around a canyon not doing much).

I expected something rough and ready, but I wasn't expecting the relative impoverishment of imagination. It really was just a showreel fan-fiction remix of King Kong and the Sinbad movies for the most part, padded out with irrelevant sequences of the characters sitting and talking. Even if one accepts one of the main controversies over this film's legacy - namely that the Evil Dead guys stole the entire central idea of this film - one is forced to admit they still came up with a billion more ways to surprise and delight the audience. The Equinox just isn't a movie designed for an outside audience, despite the attempts by the young gents to make it "more commercial".

As for the 1970 version, Woods certainly added an extra degree of professionalism to the film. For the first 20 minutes it was extremely interesting to note all the changes he made (shots inside the phantom car at the start, streamlining the opening via redubbing, etc), but soon the same sinking feeling of tedium threaten to spill over into depression rose up once again. Although Jack Woods was editorially more capable, he wasn't able to add any extra pizazz to the whole affair, though does gain points for having things actually going on most of the time. And the exchange "Tell me I don't see that." "It's a castle!" "I asked you not to tell me that!" hit some new unchartered low of sub-Hawskian banter.

The 1970 version is, I admit, the better film, and if you were about to insert needles under my fingernails, it's the one I'd watch again. But I have to admit, these were a major let-down. Yi Yi's gotta be a can't-miss though, surely?

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I expected something rough and ready, but I wasn't expecting the relative impoverishment of imagination. It really was just a showreel fan-fiction remix of King Kong and the Sinbad movies for the most part, padded out with irrelevant sequences of the characters sitting and talking. Even if one accepts one of the main controversies over this film's legacy - namely that the Evil Dead guys stole the entire central idea of this film - one is forced to admit they still came up with a billion more ways to surprise and delight the audience. The Equinox just isn't a movie designed for an outside audience, despite the attempts by the young gents to make it "more commercial".

Well, as I believe it says in the liner notes or on one of the extras (perhaps in Ackerman's intro) this film was made by teenagers, starring teenagers and for teenagers... so, you kinda have to look at it through that prism. Also, let's face it, these guys did a pretty decent job considering they pretty much at zero budget on the original version. Basically, this movie is a love letter to all the old Harryhausen films -- obviously not done with the same skill and craft but the passion and enthusiasm, at least to me, was there. So, I certainly appreciate it on that level.

[garmonbozia]

This dvd is one of the nominees for this year's Rondo Awards if anyone is interesting in voting. Voting is done via email. The ballot and instructions can be found here.

[TheRanchHand]

This was one of my favorite DVD releases of 2006 (after Seven Samurai). The film is no technical gem but a great example of low budget filmmaking from the 60s and a part of stop motion animation history. Great stuff!

[Suzukifan]

I remember seeing this one at the drive-in. I continue to thank Criterion for keeping the "B" fans in mind.

I've seen discussion of this DVD on a couple sites and I susect it sold fairly well. Lot of folks remembered it.

[HistoryProf]

This was on IFC a few weeks ago and I dvr'd it for later viewing...which was tonight. All I can say to the haters in this thread is you just don't get it. This movie was pure awesome, and I know MUST own the loaded set. I'm not sure which version they aired, so i'm curious to see the other, whichever it is. But given the nature of the production and that it was made for a mere $6,500 I just can't believe how any fan of horror and independent cinema could fail to appreciate this. Is it a masterpiece? Hell no...but i'll be damned if it isn't a ton of fun!

Edit to add two years later: man was I in a pissy mood on June 28, 2009! that's like seeing a picture of yourself from a party moment you don't remember...I hate it when the internets toss back an example of ME being the sanctimonious dick

[dad1153]

I've owned this set for a couple of years but I've only seen "A Journey Into the Supernatural (the '67 original) a few times, the last time in February with commentary. During its first 40-45 minutes this feels like the ultra-low budget home movie it is (beyond-atrocious dialogue being the main culprit), albeit one done with far more imagination and production values than much higher-budgeted commercial fare of the time. With future SFX wizards Muren/McGee/Allen at the helm it can't help but being 'peek-behind-the-veil' awesome for fans of "Star Wars" and early Spielberg. But the movie's third act (from which Sam Raimi's "Evil Dead" stole its ominous 'book of the dead' set-up) lifts up the entire project from demo reel material into a crazy-cool sci-fi geek's delightful romp. I'm afraid of seeing Jack Woods' enhanced/extended version for fear it will wallow into Z-movie nastiness. In it's raw original form "The Equinox..." makes a good first impression. It's also a nice 'in memoriam' for the on-screen cameo, memory and legacy of the late Forrest J. Ackerman.

[Mr Sausage]

This was on IFC a few weeks ago and I dvr'd it for later viewing...which was tonight. All I can say to the haters in this thread is you just don't get it. This movie was pure awesome, and I know MUST own the loaded set. I'm not sure which version they aired, so i'm curious to see the other, whichever it is. But given the nature of the production and that it was made for a mere $6,500 I just can't believe how any fan of horror and independent cinema could fail to appreciate this. Is it a masterpiece? Hell no...but i'll be damned if it isn't a ton of fun!

I did find all the elitist bitching and moaning in this thread amusing....as if this somehow devalues your incoherent Godard's and Bunuel's and whoever the hell else you watch and not understand but pretend to so you can feel smarter than everyone else. I so tire of thee. Get the fuck over yourselves already. I'll take Equinox, Blood For Dracula, etc any day over a lot of so-called masterpieces some of you trip over yourselves to try and make sense of. I loved all the Ozu swipes here too...funny stuff. Seriously...can Criterion just create a Japanese side label already? Someone needs to remind them of the word "moderation."

In short...having now seen this classic, it will be mine. Oh yes, it will be mine. And I will proudly display it next to Melville, or Ford, or whomever it is that happens to be closest of the 60 or so titles I own.

Yes, nothing gets people to change their minds about a movie more than bitter antagonism.

[Taketori Washizu]

Equinox is a great film and worthy of inclusion in The Criterion Collection. A lot of douchebag posts in this thread. Carnival of Souls, The Blob, Robocop....hello? All about eclecticism, is the Criterion mantra. Great stop motion effects...Dennis Muren and the genius known as David Allen.

[mfunk9786]

Whoa, you sure showed them