criterionforum.org

How can people not like Rupert Grint?

Apparently, it takes four sequels to kill Beef.



The 80's are back, and they're PISSED.

I'm not sure what film that explosion in the background is from but it's not from this one. And even after heavy manipulation of Quinn's face (hard to see in this image just how weird they actually made him look) the designers apparently still didn't think he looked fearsome enough -- thus the insertion of a hand holding a gun, at a totally impossible angle in relation to the rest of his body. It's quite a good film. Too bad this cover had to make it look so hideous.

Here's a larger version. What a mess! Perhaps the biggest shock is that this is not the cover of a disc from Alpha or Madacy. It's Sony!

Wow they look like 3D computer game people, strange angular, plastic-looking bodies with a picture of a face stretched over the head area but in completely the wrong positions to look natural. Perhaps this is the Behold A Pale Horse action game, coming soon for the X-Box? With your exciting opportunity to choose to play the part of the priest instead of the action hero!

Anthony Quinn's hand-gun gets more bizarre the longer I look at it! And I like that everyone seems to be looking in different directions (ironically none in awe at the magnificently crappy explosion going off behind them!)

colinr0380 wrote:Anthony Quinn's hand-gun gets more bizarre the longer I look at it!

My first reaction was "whose hand is that?" It looks like someone is using Peck and Quinn as shields while shooting a luger.

Matt wrote:Here's a larger version. What a mess! Perhaps the biggest shock is that this is not the cover of a disc from Alpha or Madacy. It's Sony!

I don't know if you have noticed but Sony has been consistently producing the worst covers for a while now. Look at all the direct to DVD covers of Steven Seagal and Wesley Snipes and you'll see that they were done by 6th graders learning how to use photoshop. And with their mainstream movies, Sony loves to use the big head feature.

dx23 wrote:I don't know if you have noticed but Sony has been consistently producing the worst covers for a while now. Look at all the direct to DVD covers of Steven Seagal and Wesley Snipes and you'll see that they were done by 6th graders learning how to use photoshop.

I see what you mean. They must have solid market research that proves that explosions in the background of the cover raise sales a significant amount.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if explosions in the background actually DID increase sales. If I had the time or energy, this would be the point where I would go grab classic melodramas and Photoshop in some nukes in the background to prove the point. But I don't have the time, so I'll just sit here and dream.

That hand and gun look like something from Monty Python. Maybe Terry Gilliam toyed with the cover while no one was looking.

Now I'm kind of expecting the top of Anthony Quinn's head to lift open and something (a pale horse?) to pop out. Yeah, something definitely Flying Circus about Quinn on that cover. Good find.

This contains a lot of visual noise:



I like the cheesy sparks under the car.

I'm not sure if it's just explosions, as I definitely notice that Red covers attract/distract my eyeballs.
So having action in red (an explosion) probably works.

Matt wrote:

dx23 wrote:I don't know if you have noticed but Sony has been consistently producing the worst covers for a while now. Look at all the direct to DVD covers of Steven Seagal and Wesley Snipes and you'll see that they were done by 6th graders learning how to use photoshop.

I see what you mean. They must have solid market research that proves that explosions in the background of the cover raise sales a significant amount.

I don't know what is worst, the explosions gimmick or the fact that even Kevin Sorbo looks bored in the cover:

Well, to be fair Kevin Sorbo always looks bored. But yeah, that is a horrendous cover. The explosion there just hits new heights of randomness. I mean, what, did is the B.O. from Sorbo's armpit that bad?

davebert wrote:You know, I wouldn't be surprised if explosions in the background actually DID increase sales. If I had the time or energy, this would be the point where I would go grab classic melodramas and Photoshop in some nukes in the background to prove the point. But I don't have the time, so I'll just sit here and dream.

Here's a quick, just-for-the-hell-of-it try:

tryavna wrote:

davebert wrote:You know, I wouldn't be surprised if explosions in the background actually DID increase sales. If I had the time or energy, this would be the point where I would go grab classic melodramas and Photoshop in some nukes in the background to prove the point. But I don't have the time, so I'll just sit here and dream.

Here's a quick, just-for-the-hell-of-it try:

Shit, they nuked France! Someone call Kevin Sorbo for revenge tactics!

Kirkinson wrote:Anyone who finds the cover entertaining must read the high-concept plot outline on IMDb:

An 11-year-old boy's amazing ability to break wind leads him first to fame and then to death row, before it helps him to fulfill his ambition of becoming an astronaut.

Sounds kinda like Female Trouble. I wanted to see this long ago, but it wasn't released here. I forgot about it, but I will get it someday, and any movie with farting is a must have.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:

dx23 wrote:

The 80's are back, and they're PISSED.

This is beautiful, nice pink on blue, great cover. Looks like a fun movie too...

Matt wrote:

if there were a Hall of Fame for these threads, might I be the first to nominate this monstrosity to the hallowed halls of balls.

domino harvey wrote:if there were a Hall of Fame for these threads, might I be the first to nominate this monstrosity to the hallowed halls of balls.

I'd second that nomination. I've just realized that the guy on the right is supposed to be Omar Sharif, not a refugee from a poster campaign warning hobbits about the dangers of foetal alcohol syndrome.

I now feel strangely compelled to buy this DVD just for the cover.

What an embarrassing trip to the Copyright Office that must have been.

I mean, c'mon. You'd think it would be a no-brainer to just use that bitchin' poster art. Instead we got this blandness. Not to mention that Fred Savage never once wore the Power Glove in the movie. That was a flaw in the poster too, but you'd think they would have had the decency to photoshop it out and fix the faux pas. For crying out loud.

CSM126 wrote:I mean, c'mon. You'd think it would be a no-brainer to just use that bitchin' poster art. Instead we got this blandness. Not to mention that Fred Savage never once wore the Power Glove in the movie. That was a flaw in the poster too, but you'd think they would have had the decency to photoshop it out and fix the faux pas. For crying out loud.

I want to say that it was legal reasons, but Mario is in the movie. Probably just a lazy/stupid designer.

CSM126 wrote:I mean, c'mon. You'd think it would be a no-brainer to just use that bitchin' poster art.

It's a good poster but, as is often the case, the detail is too small to work on a DVD cover. That's why DVD covers are all about giant heads and explosions.

Or put a giant sticker on it advertising an exclusive sneak peek at Super Mario Bros 3...

Jenny Lewis does not particularly like to be reminded of this movie, which is a shame.

Have they no shame?



Ms. Bancroft, please forgive us.