Trilogy of Terror SE

[Fletch F. Fletch]

From DavisDVD:

The 1975 made-for-television horror anthology Trilogy of Terror arrives on August 29th from specialty distributor Dark Sky Films. Directed by Dan Curtis ("Dark Shadows," "The Night Stalker"), the film stars Karen Black - with a tour-de-force of no less than four roles - in three tales written by William F. Nolan and legendary author Richard Matheson. Supplanting Anchor Bay's out-of-print (and pricey) edition, this brand new special edition will feature a new fullscreen transfer and Dolby Digital 2.0 audio. Extras will include a commentary with Black and Nolan, "Richard Matheson: Terror Scribe" and "Three Colors Black" featurettes. Retail will be $19.98.

[tavernier]

From DavisDVD:

The 1975 made-for-television horror anthology Trilogy of Terror arrives on August 29th from specialty distributor Dark Sky Films. Directed by Dan Curtis ("Dark Shadows," "The Night Stalker"), the film stars Karen Black - with a tour-de-force of no less than four roles - in three tales written by William F. Nolan and legendary author Richard Matheson. Supplanting Anchor Bay's out-of-print (and pricey) edition, this brand new special edition will feature a new fullscreen transfer and Dolby Digital 2.0 audio. Extras will include a commentary with Black and Nolan, "Richard Matheson: Terror Scribe" and "Three Colors Black" featurettes. Retail will be $19.98.

Very cool!

[Gordon]

I was really disapointed by this film. Black's acting is, as ever, superb, but that doll was just stupid, not scary at all.

There are so many TV movie horror films that are badly needed on DVD:

The Chill Factor (aka. A Cold Night's Death) (1973)
Dying Room Only (1973, written by Richard Matheson, directed by Philip Leacock)
Isn't It Shocking? (1973, John Badham)
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973)

Still, it's good to see any much-loved film released on DVD after being OOP, but I'd like to see some more of the best 70s TV movies released on DVD, especially those above.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I was really disapointed by this film. Black's acting is, as ever, superb, but that doll was just stupid, not scary at all.

Sometimes it depends on when you see something. I remember seeing this one as a child and that doll scaring the crap out of me. Of course, I also dig that other other anthology film, Nightmares (Emilio Estevez playing video games to song from Fear!).

[Gordon]

I don't want to piss in your Martini, Fletch - honest! - but when a badly lit horror film ceases to be truly scary, it has lost its power and when a film - or any other work of art - has lost its power, what is it? I suppose that you have Karen Black's solid acting.

The best example I can give of a horror film that has increased in power for me, over the years since my initial viewing is The Exorcist. I first saw it aged 11 in 1991 on a bootleg VHS from Cyprus (it was still banned as a 'video nasty' here in Britain by the BBFC) and it scared the shit out of me - but I didn't understand nor consciously appreciate the story or aesthetic/techniques of the film. Later, I would laugh at the film on reflection, but when I saw it again on the legit anniversay letterboxed VHS in 1999 whilst bed-ridden with back problems, it knocked me out - I was captivated from start to finish. Seeing it again on DVD a few years later, I really began to revel in Owen Roizman's amazing interior cinematography and the all-round great acting. The film may no longer 'scare' me, but it certainly disturbs me - greatly.

So, yes, when one sees a 'horror' film is indeed important in how it affected you and it can be a positive or negative negative factor down the line. It's no big deal, really; I just thought I'd share my thoughts!

[blindside8zao]

I will purchase this for the camp factor of the zuni fetish doll alone. I love it.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I don't want to piss in your Martini, Fletch - honest! - but when a badly lit horror film ceases to be truly scary, it has lost its power and when a film - or any other work of art - has lost its power, what is it? I suppose that you have Karen Black's solid acting.

heh! I really can't argue with ya. I guess i'm seeing it more through the veils of nostalgia 'tis all.

The best example I can give of a horror film that has increased in power for me, over the years since my initial viewing is The Exorcist. I first saw it aged 11 in 1991 on a bootleg VHS from Cyprus (it was still banned as a 'video nasty' here in Britain by the BBFC) and it scared the shit out of me - but I didn't understand nor consciously appreciate the story or aesthetic/techniques of the film. Later, I would laugh at the film on reflection, but when I saw it again on the legit anniversay letterboxed VHS in 1999 whilst bed-ridden with back problems, it knocked me out - I was captivated from start to finish. Seeing it again on DVD a few years later, I really began to revel in Owen Roizman's amazing interior cinematography and the all-round great acting. The film may no longer 'scare' me, but it certainly disturbs me - greatly.

Sure! The Exorcist is an incredible film to be sure. The film that does it for me is The Birds. I remember seeing that as a kid and being really creeped out by the birds attacking all the kids on the schoolyard. The film has only gotten better the more times I've seen it and as the years have gone on. Still a very powerful movie and I think that it's for the simple fact that we never learn why the birds start attacking people. That unknown factor is very unsettling.

So, yes, when one sees a 'horror' film is indeed important in how it affected you and it can be a positive or negative negative factor down the line. It's no big deal, really; I just thought I'd share my thoughts!

I gotcha. No harm, no foul.

[Gordon]

Funny that you should mention The Birds. I have only seen it once, back in the mid-90s on television and it really did nothing for me. However, me understanding and appreciation of Hitchcock has increased immensely in the interim. My views on Nature have also altered considerably and I really hate seagulls; like chickens, their eyes are that of the Devil to me. I found the effects crude, but I now greatly admire the work of matte artist guru Albert Whitlock. I am now very much looking forward to seeing The Birds again, once the remastered edition from the box becomes available seperately. As I live in the UK, I will no doubt get a customs charge for the box and the UK edition is badly cropped at the sides. The documentary on the disc is said to be a humdinger, also and will no doubt assist me in my reappraisal.

Thanks for the reminder, Irwin!

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Funny that you should mention The Birds. I have only seen it once, back in the mid-90s on television and it really did nothing for me. However, me understanding and appreciation of Hitchcock has increased immensely in the interim. My views on Nature have also altered considerably and I really hate seagulls; like chickens, their eyes are that of the Devil to me. I found the effects crude, but I now greatly admire the work of matte artist guru Albert Whitlock. I am now very much looking forward to seeing The Birds again, once the remastered edition from the box becomes available seperately. As I live in the UK, I will no doubt get a customs charge for the box and the UK edition is badly cropped at the sides. The documentary on the disc is said to be a humdinger, also and will no doubt assist me in my reappraisal.

Yeah, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it once you've seen it again. Every once in a while I pull out the DVD and watch it or see it on TV. Still gives me the heebie jeebies... especially crows.

Thanks for the reminder, Irwin!

Love your body, Larry.