Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

A forum for creative people.
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Post: # 8927Post Garrett Gilchrist »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPbb3KnRtp0

On the rare blood red laserdisc of Evil Dead 2, you could see this compilation of behind the scenes home movie footage from the film. This has been excerpted in documentaries since, and more home movie footage is available on Youtube. Greg Nicotero's original home movie footage runs 8h 35m 12s. Vern Hyde's runs 72m 00s.

But what's most striking is that this compilation is mostly dedicated to practical effects that didn't make the final cut of the film. A ton of brilliant stuff that was just cut out entirely. I'm not sure if some of that was censorship or just timing, but as far as I know these scenes no longer exist. At five minutes in you'll see Evil Ed with half a head, part of a full scene cut from the film.

A low quality VHS workprint of the first part of Evil Dead 2 has leaked, but there are no significant differences from the final film. It ends well before the "Evil Ed" scenes.

A very strange German "extended" release of Evil Dead 2 literally edits this home movie footage into the film, which just shows how desperate people would be to really see this stuff.



Oddly, a Mexican TV version of Evil Dead 2 does contain a bunch of legitimate extended scenes, though all of the TV friendly variety! It's strangely rare but can be found in low quality.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRB2n5 ... jFw/videos

Info about the extended Mexican version, which - oddly - ends with a photo montage involving the premiere of Evil Dead 1!
http://www.bookofthedead.ws/website/evi ... sions.html


http://www.bookofthedead.ws/website/evi ... cenes.html

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=964068

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCpsL-djCYA


There have been two different compilations of deleted and raw footage for Evil Dead 1 on DVD.

The prequel film "Within The Woods" was scheduled for DVD release but pulled at the last moment, several times. Fans have made do with very poor quality bootlegs.

As for Army of Darkness, there is of course the extended "Director's Cut," and the TV edit which restores a few further scenes.

The deleted scenes of the original opening and Ash recruiting Henry the Red have never been seen in better than VHS bootleg quality, as far as I know.

http://www.bookofthedead.ws/website/arm ... cenes.html

It's also been said that more material was shot for the original opening, including Ash's jerk boss at S-Mart. And clearly the Evil Dead 2 remake sequence was longer, as seen in the alternate opening. I don't know if this material even exists now -- unlikely after so many releases of the film.
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Post: # 8930Post Garrett Gilchrist »

[continued from a facebook discussion]

I like Army of Darkness a lot, but it's definitely its own thing. It rarely feels like a horror film, more just Sam Raimi indulging his most ridiculous instincts. It's impossible to take it too seriously as a film, and shows the filmmaking process in action even more than the Evil Dead movies.

Some scenes go for an "Evil Dead" flavor and fall flat, including the original ending and opening, and it's easy to imagine a version of the film which was shot in a more "serious" or Evil Dead-like fashion.

In all of Sam Raimi's movies there's an insanity lurking beneath the surface, like at any minute the movie could go too far, fall apart and turn into absolute stupidity. This happens toward the end of Darkman, at points in Spider-Man 3, for most of CrimeWave, for the Oz movie ... and in all his movies at points.

So it's like Army of Darkness was the movie he was building up toward his whole career -- where all his creativity would be used to make something stupid. Army of Darkness is also the only time where I can even imagine a "Sam Raimi comedy" working as a movie, from start to finish. It's a very good comedy, and as kinetic and clever as anything Raimi has done.

It's easy to prefer Evil Dead 2 as a movie though, which rides that line of insanity but doesn't break. Evil Dead 2 is a wild ride but still dark, like we're in a madman's brain. It's still a horror film.

The old (and rare) blood-red laserdisc of Evil Dead 2 had the Beta-taped home movie footage of preparing the effects sequences on it, pretty much in full. That's been excerpted in various documentaries since. But what it shows is, most of the effects work was cut out of the film for some reason. Possibly for censorship reasons in some cases. It is a crime that those scenes apparently no longer exist.

It's a great film without all that, but so many delightful effects shots were cut for no clear reason.

While I'm at it, there was more stuff shot for the opening sequence of Army of Darkness that doesn't seem to exist anymore. More of the "S-Mart" opening (with a jerk boss, apparently) and more of the "Evil Dead/Evil Dead 2" remake - some of which you can see in the deleted original opening to the movie, which only seems to exist as VHS quality now.

The reshot S-Mart ending to Army of Darkness, and the witch scene in the film itself (which was shot around the same time I think), take things even further than most of the movie does. It really clarifies what sort of movie this is -- wildly over the top. The original ending and opening suggest a different film. The deleted opening goes for a horror-movie tone which the rest of the film can't live up to. Army of Darkness could have gone either way. But it didn't .... so the over the top S-Mart ending is really what it needs.
User avatar
JustinHoskie
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Post: # 8955Post JustinHoskie »

filmfan94 wrote:R.I.P. Debbie Reynolds
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/debbi ... 201949432/
This one hurt the most...
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/debbie-r ... form-video

Something There | Emma Watson | Recording Sync | Beauty and the Beast | 2017
"Bootleg recordings of Hasbro's Singing Belle doll, which is scheduled to be fully released January 1, 2017 and features this portion of "Something There," began to appear online on December 29, 2016 after consumers began finding the doll for sale in some Toys "R" Us stores.

"This clip was released via Disney's official Beauty and the Beast social media accounts on December 30. The film is due for release on March 17, 2017."


Words cannot describe how much I adore Emma's voice here. Is it powerful and belting? No. Could she do Broadway? Likely not. But on Broadway, you have to have a powerful, belting voice to reach the back row. With film, you can have a softer, more intimate voice, because you can be intimate and more subtle in your performance. And that’s exactly what her voice is; soft and intimate.

To me, the musical genre is incredibly hard to pull off in the realistic medium of film. The only live action film I’ve seen that comes close to truly pulling it off is Les Misérables (though no one seems to agree with me). Every other musical is too polished, too theatrical, too fake for me think that it truly holds it's own as a good film. To my ears, Emma’s voice totally fits with my idea of Belle, and after listening to it over and over and over again, seeing it with some visual representation for the scene, and hearing to the nuisance, I totally buy into Emma's Belle.

In the end, this makes me excited. It’s not Paige O'Hara, that's true, but that’s fine. I’ve personally never really adored Paige’s voice for Belle; it’s beautiful, but it’s never fit the character for me. I can see why someone may be a tad apprehensive about Emma based on this clip, but a key piece of this performance is the visual to go with it, something that we don't have right now.

I still don't see a point in making it, though. If it was based off of the stage musical like it was originally planned, I would be on board for it. And though they seem to be making truly interesting choices and addressing some of the story problems I have with the original -- It looks like they're focusing on Prince Adam's backstory a bit more and making Belle the inventor, which would explain why she's such an outcast. -- it's still just a rehashing of the original, as opposed to The Jungle Book or Cinderella remakes, which told their stories in a different way. And, on top of that, it's being done with CGI, and I doubt it'll hold up 10 years from now.

Still, it'll be interesting to hear Alan Menken revisiting a score that is such a touchstone in his life and career, the design is visually stunning, and it'll result in a recording of one of my favorite Ashman & Menken scores, so I can't really complain.

So, I for one am excited for this to finally get released and see what one of my favorite actresses does with one of my favorite Disney heroines.
User avatar
filmfan94
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Post: # 8974Post filmfan94 »

2016 Oscar nominations; unsurprisingly, La La Land has the most nominations.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... allot.html
User avatar
filmfan94
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Post: # 8980Post filmfan94 »

Very sad to hear that. I always thought he was a great actor with such a distinctive voice.
User avatar
filmfan94
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 6:26 pm

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Post: # 8985Post filmfan94 »

David Shepard, curator of the Blackhawk Films library and the man who helped bring many silent films into the open, has passed away from cancer.

(see post 68)
http://www.nitrateville.com/viewtopic.p ... 55#p182355
User avatar
JustinHoskie
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:07 pm

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Post: # 9027Post JustinHoskie »

“LeFou is somebody who on one day wants to be Gaston and on another day wants to kiss Gaston. He’s confused about what he wants. It’s somebody who’s just realizing that he has these feelings. And Josh makes something really subtle and delicious out of it. And that’s what has its payoff at the end, which I don’t want to give away. But it is a nice, exclusively gay moment in a Disney movie.” http://www.broadway.com/buzz/187742/sne ... ou-is-gay/
User avatar
Garrett Gilchrist
Site Admin
Posts: 7573
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Movie Thread: The Dissection Room

Post: # 9030Post Garrett Gilchrist »

Big thumbs up for Bill Condon's live-action Beauty and the Beast. At its best, this is a more real-world take on the very familiar musical which fleshes out its characters and world in appealing ways. The animated 1991 original is a classic and hard to top, and I expect people will have strong opinions about this, but there's a lot to love here. This is a longer film and there are are a lot of new ideas here, and most of them are good ones.

Not everything works, and we can quibble about the film's choices. It's a mixed bag. But the choices the film makes are consistent ones, which set its tone. The enchanted servants are more ornate here. I'd call them over-designed compared to the 1991 film, but consistently so.

Then there's the more-humanoid, very-CGI Beast. The more animal-like 1991 design is ignored here, for reasons passing understanding. He's always moving in a CGI kind of way, and never quite convincing enough, even compared to Jean Marais in the 1946 film which clearly inspired both Disney films. But the important thing is that the performance of the character comes through. He has kind eyes and manages to "act" onscreen likeably throughout. Not a small feat for a CGI character. Another reviewer said that the eyes were the only things they got right - but that's also key to the character. He is a bit disappointing and not the showpiece character that he could have been, but it's still a version of The Beast which works.

Arguably we could compile a long list of nitpicks, complaints and missed opportunities, and still come out of it saying that this film works. It's a faithful adaptation which brings new ideas to the table and consistently delights, when it would have been easy for this film to fall flat on its face, or to copy the 1991 film while adding nothing new.

For what it's worth, Alan Menken has written new song numbers for the film, with some lyrics by Tim Rice. Different new songs were written for the Broadway musical. We are spared "Human Again," which was added to the animated film in 2002. It's not a necessary number and it's not missed here. Instead we get a more emotional song, "Days in the Sun," a real improvement for this film's purposes. Kevin Kline's Maurice sings a little something, but it's minor. And The Beast gets a new solo song, which is frankly a mistake and stops the film dead. The Broadway musical tried something similar.

The oddest choice the film makes is a subplot involving a book and Belle's mother. It fills in some backstory for Belle, but in an awkward way involving magic. I'd call it one new idea too many, although Watson, Stevens and Kline are good enough actors to get through it.

The cast is all charm. Harry Potter star Emma Watson seems like she's been a Disney heroine her whole life. Luke Evans plays Gaston as a charismatic war hero with violence in his veins. He's less cartoony and less of a punchline than he could have been. He's not obliviously dumb. He knows how to read people, and say what they want to hear. He's a liar, but he's not a fake hot air balloon. Dan Stevens pulls off the roles of the Beast and the Prince without embarrassing himself - not easy to do. And Kevin Kline is as likeable as you'd expect as Belle's father.

Josh Gad as LeFou, Gaston's sidekick, gets a lot more to do than his animated counterpart. Gad is not enough of a stage actor to pull off the song number "Gaston" - his voice gets lost in the mix. And often the joke is that Gad is playing the part in a more mumbly and anachronistic way than expected. But the bold choice here is that LeFou is played as overtly gay. He idolizes Gaston, wanting to be like him, and be with him. And when Gaston starts to do terrible things, LeFou has to put those feelings aside. From the start, we like and root for LeFou.

The film also takes time to give the enchanted servants plenty to do. Emma Thompson plays Mrs. Potts in an Angela Lansbury sort of way. Ian McKellen as Cogsworth makes a delightfully rusty old clock. A reluctant soldier and even more reluctant lover. Ewan MacGregor is charming as Lumiere, played as something of a romantic lead, and again toned down compared to the 1991 film. During "Be Our Guest," he comes close at times to talking rather than singing, but you could say the same about Jerry Orbach's original.

"Be Our Guest" is cranked up to a higher level of visual complexity here, emphasizing the magical nature of the servants, and how hard they're working, trying not to screw this up. The whole film is very visually complex and detailed, perhaps to a fault. They throw away the familiar designs from the animated version for something more ornate and baroque. I'm tempted to say there's too much going on, onscreen and in the design, and even to call it ugly, but I found myself liking it regardless. The film has its own visual style, and that look is a deliberate choice which more or less works. It helps that the visuals work overtime to give us more.

Visually, the live actors are allowed to look like cartoon characters, with the prince's court wearing period-style makeup that's very theatrical. The overall effect is almost like seeing a Disney show on Broadway, where you appreciate the often unusual choices made to make this work with live actors. We get to know the servants a little more both in animated and live actor form.

The 1991 film is a simple, tight, almost perfect animated musical. The live action film expands on that and takes its time a lot more. But it has enough good new ideas that this feels like it's adapting to the pace of a live action film in 2017, and giving the actors something to do. It's not the exact script of the 1991 film, though the familiar songs are present and accounted for. Sometimes, where the 1991 film was subtle, this script is blunt. The "provincial" townsfolk are allowed to be rude.

It's easy to nitpick this live action version, since the animated film could have been remade, designed and adapted any number of ways. There are little moments from the original which become lost opportunities here.

But then again, there are many moments which use twenty-five years' hindsight to fill in bits of plot that the original film skipped over. There have been jokes for years about how the arrogant prince was twelve years old when he was cursed - too young to know better. That's not true here. The prince is older and in charge when he is cursed, and there are fleeting attempts to blame his bad behavior on his father. You'll notice he's less childish than the 1991 Beast. This is a Beast with a backstory, and a little life experience.

When the Beast saves Belle from some wolves and passes out, we fix another twenty-five year old plot hole, as here, he's just awake enough to get back on Belle's horse.

Belle has more than one blue outfit, and doesn't change out of her gold outfit when rushing out of the castle.

The film tries to give reasons why the townspeople would consider Belle strange, beyond that she's literate. In doing so, though, it compounds the problem - they seem strangely anti-literacy, and being jerks for no reason. We see that there's a bit of her father in Belle - He's an inventor, and also in this version primarily an artist. It also gives Belle the backstory that she was nearly raised as a city girl - no wonder she tires of the provincial life.

The film is also pleasantly aware that Belle's taste in books leans toward romance rather than education. Since the Beast is fully literate here, it's played off as girl stuff versus guy stuff.

Oh, and the ending is fully aware that we've gotten to like The Beast, and don't care so much for the Prince he turns back into. They cover this with one line, as a joke.

So, why remake a classic that's lost none of its appeal in the twenty-five plus years since its release? Well, because people will pay money to go see it, of course. As an animation fan I wouldn't want it to replace the original, but I'll think of it as a film adaptation of a musical. We've already had the adaptation on Broadway. Well, when the results are as good as this, it can stand on its own feet as a film. I can live with it. And if Disney's other remakes are this respectful and smart, they'll be worth seeing too.
Post Reply