Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia  I must say that I'm also not too fond of this artwork. That's not to say it's a bad painting, it's very good actually. However, I think it misrepresents the film somewhat. And you know what else? If I was out with the missus and saw this on sale I'd be embarrassed to pick this up as it looks too much like a skin-flick! I think the casual high-street buyer needs to be considered here.
Aside from all that, the film's called Inferno - it needs fiery artwork, not watery. And not that I'm against nudity, but in a film that boasts virtually nothing in the flesh department, it's a bit inappropriate. If this was D'Amato I'd say 'yes, good stuff.' But for Argento? No, I don't think so. |
Agree completly with you there Daemonia! That was the reason why it took me so long to get all the Shameless films. The nudity on the covers. Going into HMV and taking these to the counter can be quite embarrasing.
Gore, blood and guts on the other hand isn't embarrasing AT ALL. In fact, covers with gore EVERYWHERE is a sort of honour. A sort of 'Look at me watching these disturbing films! You couldn't handle this!" If you know what I mean. Which is why the
Macabre cover is one of my favs of Rick's.
As for this
Inferno cover, well I've never actually seen this film. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON ME! So, I can't really comment though it does look very sleazy.