Earlier in 2014, Skuzzles partnered with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) Studios and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment in developing artwork for 13 cult classic horror films. The DVDs and Blu-rays feature illustrated limited edition artwork created by a collective of incredible artists from all over the globe (Ghoulish Gary Pulin, Jason Edmiston, Todd Slater, Randy Ortiz, Josh Budich, Justin Osborne, Paul Shipper, Gregorz Domaradzki "Gabz", Francesco Francavilla) . The films are offered at all major retailers, including Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Best Buy Canada and Walmart Canada. The films can be found on Blu-ray for $7-9, and on DVD for only $5-7.
Alfred Hitchock was the the master of suspense. He had the ability to draw you deep into a story, watching every detail with breathless anticipation. When he was at the top of his game, that is! Like any artist, some of his work does not holdup. Stephen King, when he is swinging home runs, also is a master of suspense. I find that stories like Dolores Claiborne and Joyland give me that same level of frantic anticipation that a good Hitchock film does.
I see online a lot essays comparing the two, asking who is the true master of suspense. That's really subjective, and a little childish. Not that this blog is beyond childish! However, they worked in different story telling mediums. If comparing apples to apples -- King movies verses Hitchcock movies, then the answer is hands down Mr. Hitchcock is the master of suspense. King's art is with words, and in that realm, he is -- well -- king.
Watching a Hitchcock is a real treat. In movie like Rear Window, Psycho, Vertigo and The Birds, each scene is like an incredible painting. Hitchcock didn't like filming on locations because so much was out of his control. However, some of the most awesome outdoor scenes brought to film are from Mr. Hitchcock. He would choose every car, and in what order, that would drive by in a scene. Nothing was left to chance!
It is natural to compare the two. Though using different mediums, they often use similar approaches.
Limitation:
I got The Alfred Hitchcock collection on Blu Ray the other night. On the Rear Window DVD, Peter Bogdanovich notes how Hitchcock really liked to limit himself. In Rear Window, Jimmy Stewart has a broken leg and the entire movie is shot looking out his window! Rope also takes place in one apartment. And Lifeboat also is set completely on the boat. Interesting, as there is little scene change, yet the story is so gripping it holds the viewers interest.
Limitation is an art Stephen King has honed and refined.
Some particular limitations:
1. In Cujo most of the action took place trapped in a car.
2. Gerald's Game cent`ered completely on a woman tied to a bed. Small efforts -- like trying to get water -- become monumental feats in which the reader roots for her.
3. Susannah in the Dark Tower is crippled. So is the boy in Silver Bullet.
4. Of course, in Under The Dome the characters are locked together under a giant Dome. I sure would love it if King went back and finished Cannibals, which was an early attempt at Under The Dome. In Cannibals, the people were trapped inside an apartment building. I LOVED the drafts King released.
5. In The Mist the characters are trapped inside a Grocery store.
Cameos.
Not only did Alfred Hitchcock introduce each Hitchcock was known to appear briefly in his own works. It's kind of fun to spot him! I think the most obvious is in The Birds. Hitchcock did this early because he did not want the audience to spend the entire movie looking for him and miss the other elements of his story telling.
It is unusual for an author to do Cameo's in their own work, but Stephen King has made quite a few. Most of the time, it is simply references to his work. Such is the case in The Library Policeman. But in The Dark Tower, King personally appears as himself in The Song of Suzanna.
Ordinary Dangers
In The Birds, Hitchcock took something very ordinary -- birds -- and terrified America. Before the birds, horror movies usually created monstrosities, such as Frankenstein's monster. Or, Hollywood was known to take ordinary animals and make them huge, like gigantisized ants. With the birds, Hitchcock took an ordinary small animal and made it scary. King does this all the time with rats!
Janet Lea, who took that famous shower in Psycho, said that Hitchcock made it so she could never take a shower again! After all, think how vulnerable you are in a shower. (Ask Travis Alexander how dangerous a shower is) King didn't make the shower dangerous, but he did cause an awful lot of people to hate clowns.
Here are some ordinary things King has made scary: 1. Cars. 2. Rats. 3. Dogs. 4. Libraries. 5. A Prom. 6. Clowns. 7. Blow torch. (Misery)
Marriage
Hitchcock's wife Alma was deeply involved in each film he made. From the work of scripting the story to choosing wardrobe and actors, she had a hand in it. When Hitchcock recieved the AFI Life Achievement Award, he thanked one person: Alma.
King has spoken often of the importance of his wife's support and input. He continues to seek her approval -- even if he might deny it a little. I like the story King tells of driving with his wife as she sat in the passenger seat reading part of a book. He asked how it was, and she told him to stop being so needy!
Hitchcock didn't like to spend the evening on the set, but was always home promptly to be with his wife, with whom he often cooked dinner. King has done his fair share of cooking, and has even contributed to a cookbook titled, "Man with a Pan."
GENRE
Though both deal in the art of suspense, Hitchcock and King actually deal in very different genres. King is quick to use the supernatural as a story telling device. It is fair to expect ghosts, vampires, possessed cars and even a few haunted houses in a Stephen King story. In a Hitchcock film there are not ghosts, there are murders and Natzi spies! But the tension is real in both.
I discussed in my short essay, What King Book Would Hitchcock Film, a list of stories I thought would suit the famous director. One person offered the addition of The Ledge to my list, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Some people, my family included, have seen the use of supernatural as a weakness in King's writing. I love it! From Bag of Bones to IT, the creepy stuff is the best when Stephen King is narrating.
Prolific
Hitchock hosted multiple series, as well as making over fifty feature films. In fact, as I read The Art of Alfred Hitchock, I'm surprised by just how many of Hitch's films I haven't seen. There are several I'd like to see. The Lodger is one, and Under Capricorn is another. Hitchcock started in the silent era in 1925.
King, likewise, has amassed quite a body of work, and he shows no signs of slowing.
Did you know that there is one film that Alfred Hitchcock filmed twice? It's The Man Who Knew Too Much. 1934 and then in 1956. Hitchcock said, "Let's say that the first version was the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional." Of course, King hasn't produced the same book twice -- exactly. There was a first attempt at Under The Dome, called Cannibals. But they are essentially different stories. But when you look at The Gunslinger and the revision, I think you see two very different stories. I prefer the revised version. The same can be true of The Stand, which exists in two distinct versions. Again, I like the one that was recut and retold. The storyteller gets better at his craft with each telling.
Though King has never gone back and rewritten a book quite the way Hitchcock returned to The Man Who Knew Too Much, there is a book I wish he would rewrite -- The Tommyknockers. I find parts of the novel difficult to read, yet the story itself quite engaging.
Years ago, my wife and I went out on a rainy night and watched the remake of Psycho. As rain poured outside, and the well known story of murder played out on screen, my wife leaned in and said, "This is really scary!" And it was. But no one could reproduce what Hitchcock had done, even when trying to translate the film scene by scene and frame by frame. Actually, that remake doesn't make any sense to me! Why did they remake it if they were going to use the same script and direction Hitchcock had done? Just to get new actors and do it in color? Hitchcock did Psycho in black and white because by choice.
FAVORITES!
What's your favorite Hitchcock? I find I like Hitchcock's later career -- but not the last of the last! The films of the 60's -- Marnie, Torn Cuartian, Topaz, Frenzy and Family Plot all fail to grab me. My all time favorites are Psycho, Rear Window and Vertigo.
Here's a few of my favorites:
Mr. and Mrs Smith, 1940
Shadow of a Doubt, 1943
Lifeboat, 1944
Spellbound, 1945
Strangers on a Train, 1951 (Which has to be paired with Throw Mamma From The Train)
Dial M for Murder, 1954
Rear Window, 1954
The Man Who Knew Too Much, 1955
Vertigo, 1958
North by Northwest, 1959
Psycho, 1960
The Birds, 1963
And favorite episode of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour is Final Escape.
From the Press Release In 1980 Stanley Kubrick, who had earlier created landmarks in the genres of black comedy (Dr. Strangelove) and science fiction (2001: A Space Odyssey), released his masterpiece of modern horror, The Shining. Over 30 years later we're still struggling to unearth its hidden meanings. Rodney Ascher's wry and provocative documentary ROOM 237 fuses fact, fiction and speculation through interviews with both fervent fans of the film and scholars, creating a kaleidoscopic deconstruction of Kubrick's controversial classic. It comes to Blu-ray and double-disc DVD from IFC Midnight on September 24, 2013. The bonus-filled discs have SRPs, respectively, of $29.98 and $27.98. Special Features
"The mstrmnd Speaks: Commentary with Kevin McLeod" (McLeod is a key figure in the online examination of Kubrick's film.)
"Secrets of The Shining," an hour-long panel discussion from the first Stanley Film Festival, an event at Colorado's historic Stanley Hotel, which inspired one-time guest Stephen King to write his novel
11 Deleted Scenes
"The Making of the Music" featurette
Mondo Poster Design Discussion with Artist Aled Lewis
I liked this article by Bryant Burnette a lot. I enjoyed his commentary on the movies, and generally agreed wholeheartedly. Besides, he took the time to track down all the links to Amazon. Being that I liked it so much, there are two things I could do. . .
1. I could recreate Bryant Burnette's post about Stephen King Blu-Rays and try to make it look like my own.
2. I could steal his post and wait quietly in my cabin for him to come knocking on my door. "You stole my story," he would say.
Recently, I bit a bullet: I purchased a Blu-ray
player. I'd been saying I wasn't going to do this for a while, on account of
the fact that I haven't yet been able to save up enough money to buy myself an
HD-capable television. Nope; still stuck with my 1998 Zenith, which downscales
Blu-ray to a glorious 480p. That's 600p less than 1080! Six hundred ps
missing!
But, I was determined to buy the Bond 50
Blu-ray set while it was cheap as hell, since that would be WAY up on my
list of the first purchases I would need to make when I finally do get around to
buying that 3D-capable el humungo teevee I will eventually
buy.
And so it is that now, my extensive collection
of Stephen King DVDs feels just kinda sad and outdated. They'll all have to be
upgraded at some point, of course, and I'm sure I'll complete that process just
in time for the next leap forward in technology, whatever that ends up being.
Ah, well; such is the life of a low-income collector.
It got me to thinking: how many King movies are
actually available on Blu-ray? It's a question I don't know how to answer;
deprived of HD as I've been, I've mostly opted to not pay attention to what's
out there and what isn't.
So: research time! And I figured, why not pass
along the fruits of that labor to you?
Naturally, Carrie -- the King flick that
started the whole thing -- is available. I'm not the biggest fan of this flick,
but it would be a travesty if it weren't on Blu.
(And in case you are wondering, no, I get no
kickback of any kind from Amazon for these links. They are for your convenience
only.)
(It's also worth noting that this
research only takes Region 1 releases into account. I've got a few readers who
will not be helped by this at all. Sorry, Australia!)
And finally, loath
as I am to promote them, you can get seasons one
and two
of Haven; together it'll set ya back nearly sixty bucks, and surely
you've got better things to do with sixty bucks than
this...
*****
I'm sure more King titles will go hi-def one of
these days, especially if the floodgate of new King movies ever opens the way
it's been threatening to lately. I'd love to see the original Salem's Lot
on Blu, as well as Maximum Overdrive, for some reason. And maybe,
someday, a complete-series version of Golden Years with the original and
uncut episodes, plus Needful Things with the longer television edit as a
bonus feature.
Ryan Young has an article at examiner.com that discusses the Pet Sematary Blu-ray treatment, as well as offering his personal insights on the movie.
Concerning the film itself, I think it is safe to say that Mr. Young is not a fan. He suggests that the film at certain points the film nearly crosses over into "comedic territory." He finds the acting campy (other than Fred Gwynne) and states he does not think it "feels" like a movie.
I thought it was a good movie. I didn't approach it looking for Star Wars -- it was just a fun horror movie. Now what's disappointing is to approach Star Wars (say, Episode 1) expecting Star Wars and come away with. . . whatever that was. Anyway, the acting in Pet Sematary seems just fine to me. In fact, I thought it was pretty good. I note that because I've heard others complain about the acting. Oh well -- to each his own -- I liked it.
I think in terms of story, Young is right when he concludes, " the film is haunting in several areas, it doesn't quite live up to the terror the book so adequately provided."
The Blu-ray does not offer any new special features. I find that disappointing. I already have the collectors edition with all of the special features that are just transferred over to the Blu-ray.
So what does the Blu-ray offer? Young notes two things that he enhance the movie in the Blu-ray format. First the visual 1010p, though "not perfect" has brightened the picture and added clarity to particularly dark scenes. "Unquestionably," Young says, "the film has never looked better, but it could still use further enhancement."
Second, he is excited about the audio soundtrack. Young writes, "from Church's screeching first re-appearance since his burial and the rush of the freight trucks barrelling down the road. The audio is nicely displaced among all the speakers of a surround system, with specific clarity never before heard."
Young concludes that perhaps Pet Sematary wasn't a film that really needed to be brought to Blu-ray, but benefits from it none-the-less. Kind of a funny thought, right? Telling a movie, "You don't deserve to look that good. . . but boy howdy, you sure do look good these days!"
Young's full article "Stephen King's 'Pet Sematary' benefits from a Blu-ray upgrade" can be found HERE.
DVD file has posted news that we can expect Pet Sematary to hit Blu-ray and include a commentary track as well as special features.
2 October will bring the Blu-ray release of Pet Sematary. This Stephen King cult classic will arrive with a 1080p transfer, a DTS-HD Master Audio sound mix, a commentary track, and a slate of featurettes. SRP is $22.98 (Check it out HERE.)
This is exciting news to me,as I think this is one of the best Stephen King adaptations out there. It is both scary and faithful to the plot and mood of the novel.
In short, readers both familiar and unfamiliar with Stephen King's novels will find a motherlode of interesting information inside the pages of Brighton David Gardner's insightful and illuminating treatise.
I can't recommend it enough, so be sure to get it either for your Kindle or e-Reader of choice, or buy the print version because it's easily worth twice the cover price.
