National VCR DAY – June 7:

#VHS, #VCR, #movie, #NationalVCRDay, #HomeCinema, #video, #cinema, #film, #Retro, #VideoCassetteRecorder,

Adulterers (2015) - free will ... and its consequences:

Adulterers (2015) - free will ... and its consequences:

Review by Jack Kost

Adulterers is a cautionary tale, a powerful drama inspired by true events, and far more compelling than the contrived Fatal Attraction (1987) and Unfaithful (2002).

How you feel at the end of Adulterers may depend on your personal experience of the subject it deals with.

It’s right there in the title.

If you’ve ever been cheated on by your significant other – then this movie might sting.

If you have cheated on your significant other – then this movie should rightly sting if you have any conscience and sense of guilt about the choice you made.

Consequences for making the wrong choice is the theme unflinchingly examined in this movie, released in the United States on January 5, 2016, written, produced and directed by H.M. Coakley.

Lead actor, Sean Farris threw himself into this role of a betrayed husband.

We see the anguish of his character, his pain, regret, broken heart, broken life, and ultimately broken mind.

Sean Farris is Samuel, a store assistant, working extra hours during a sweltering New Orleans afternoon.

It’s his first wedding anniversary; a special day in any marriage.

Samuel is a proud and happy man, deeply in love with his wife, Ashley (Danielle Savre).

He regrets having to work so many hours and laments at their lack of money, but he plans on making it up to Ashley.

He swings by his home halfway through his day, carrying his wife’s favorite flowers and chocolates.

Besides their money troubles, all seems right with Samuel’s world until he catches Ashley and her lover, Damien (Mehcad Brooks), naked, having sex in the bedroom.

Devastated, Samuel shoots them both.

This is not a spoiler; it happens within the first twelve minutes.

Downstairs, he sits on the couch, and drinks whiskey straight from the bottle.

Suffering a psychological break, he rethinks the situation.

This time, in his imagination, he doesn’t pull the trigger.

What if I’d waited instead of acting on impulse?

What would I say to them?

How far would I go to punish them?

What would they say to justify their sin, or lie their way out of the situation?

These questions are the basis for the imagined trial and torture he puts his wife and her lover through in that stifling room.

As Samuel struggles with the pain of betrayal and infidelity, the wedding ring, crucifix and Bible often the focus of the camera, he struggles with his faith.

Finally, as Samuel himself points out:

"You ain't sorry. You're just sorry that you got caught. It's time that you dealt with the consequences of your actions."

In forcing them to face the consequences of their actions, Samuel is then left to face the consequences of his own.

There are no winners in this story; everyone is destroyed.

Adultery … it’s all fun and games ... until you get caught!

Poltergeist (1982) vs. (2015) - no contest!

Review by Jack Kost

My wife and I are both “arty” souls.
We love to watch movies, and when they’re over we discuss them in depth, probably more in depth than most people.
We also enjoy discussing books, music, art, et al … also in depth.
My wife loves to paint, I love to write and sketch.
Our recent viewings of the 1982 and 2015 versions of Poltergeist turned from a fond, nostalgic chat about the former, to a “why did they bother” rant about the latter.

I’ll start with the original 1982 version, released in the United States on June 4, 1982:

It was produced by Steven Spielberg, based on his own story, and directed by Tobe Hooper.
For us, the 1982 original is a cinematic treat.
Hooper may have helmed the direction, but this has all the heart, feeling, emotion, humor, and suspense of a Spielberg movie.
We – the audience – see the family dynamics, their neighbors, and the history of the ever-expanding housing development.
The movie may be thirty-four-years-old, as of this writing, but it’s still the thrill-ride Spielberg has entertained fans with for decades.
The original is one of the best of the haunted house genre; an eerie and memorable light-show with a perfect end scene.

The high entertainment value reminds us of why we watch movies in the first place.
Spielberg knows how to engage and hold his audience.

Then we experienced the miserable let-down of the 2015 remake:

This was our post-Thanksgiving movie.
As usual, we discussed it after the end credits rolled, our discussion fueled by disdain!
We compared both versions, and shook our heads at how dreary and painful the remake is.
It felt like a by-the-numbers run-through for the actors in it, who seemed content to show up, recite the dismal script, and pick up their pay checks.
Not many movies have actually pissed me off, but this one made the list.
Absent is the charm and quality scripting of the original.
It simply goes through the motions without any of the character development, tension, or suspense of the original.
I watched it feeling bored after the first fifteen minutes, hoping it would pick up, get better, curious as to how it would unfold in a new retelling, being more disappointed as each scene unfolded.
I’m a fan of Sam Rockwell, but this was another example of how even a fine actor can’t save a lousy script.
We see some flashy effects, as we expect to see in this modern CGI-heavy age, but there’s nothing behind it, no depth or reason to care about what we’re being presented with.
The scene with Sam Rockwell regurgitating black goo into the sink, then seeing his reflection in the faucet, sores opening on his face, is a reworking of the scene in the original: Marty (Martin Casella) seeing maggots swarming on a chicken drumstick he’s just taken a bite out of, then his own face coming apart in the mirror.
It’s a great scene, even with the dated animatronics, with far more impact than the insipid 2015 version:

Zelda Rubinstein’s portrayal of Tangina, the psychic brought in to rescue their daughter and “clean” the house, is one of the high points of the story.

Her monologue to the family and investigators about what is really going on is chilling.
The character is also reworked for the 2015 version, changed for the contemporary audience, but giving nothing new or remarkable.
Running at roughly thirty minutes shorter, the remake has omitted the best elements of the original – to its own detriment.
Gone is the steady build-up of the original, as the 2015 version cuts directly to the shock-free plot markers.
Gone also are the comedic elements with the death of the pet canary, and the neighbor’s battle with the TV remote controls, parts of the story that developed the set-up and made us care more about the family and their predicament.

The key scene of the malevolent force entering the home, via the static of the TV set, is also changed, but as animated as the original was - it still had significant shock value to a first-time viewer:

It felt like the 2015 version had been made quickly and rushed out the studio door, nothing more than another vacuous money-making product.

The 1982 original has rightfully earned its place in cinema history – a classic of its genre; the 2015 rehash deserves nothing more than to be ignored and forgotten.

Thanksgiving: a time to give thanks.
Along with everything else we have been blessed with, we gave thanks for the fact that we hadn’t wasted money at the cinema box office for yet-another pointless, lazy, half-assed, cash-grab.