Upcoming Non-UK Blu-ray Releases

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by Antropophagus

Exactly! Just take a look at these pics I took from my Shameless BD:



Smeary, waxy DNRed. Far from an excellent transfer.

Blimey! Watched the disc a bunch of times and never noticed....

[keirarts]

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs

From Grindhouse Releasing regarding the Road to Hell footage:

So then the grindhouse release is cut. not the definitive release then.i know some might try and argue its one little bit thats missing but remember the stink people made over the musk rat killing not being there. Same thing.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by J Harker

I've got this one which I thought was completely uncut
Attachment 135528
Think it's an Australian release.
Is the animal cruelty free cut the same as Deodato's reconstructed version on the Shameless blu?

I believe that version is uncut. It's dead easy to tell if the road to hell sequence is cut or not as it noticeably jumps and the music jars. I have the Italian Blu and the jump is so bad I thought it was an Elephant Video release....
I don't own the Shameless blu but from what I have been led to understand is that the cruelty free version shows no animal violence and Deodato's reconstruction only omits the muskrat scene.

[J Harker]

So Deodato's edit doesn't actually alter the structure of the film as in moving scenes around?

[Antropophagus]

Originally Posted by keirarts

Blimey! Watched the disc a bunch of times and never noticed....

Enlarge the picture and look at both men's faces. Especially Robert Kerman's.

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by J Harker

So Deodato's edit doesn't actually alter the structure of the film as in moving scenes around?

....not that I've heard but I don't want to say definitively so as I don't have the Shameless release. Anyone else know.....

[Andra Jai]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

....not that I've heard but I don't want to say definitively so as I don't have the Shameless release. Anyone else know.....

it slightly obscures some of the animal footage by adding dirt and print damage over the top of the scene whereas the Grindhouse version actually skips over the animal scenes entirely which is another reason for my buying the new blu-ray as it saves me from hitting the fast forward button on those occasions.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

Bottom line is CH was made to shock. It does that admirably and is testament to that in still being controversial 35 years after it was made. In that respect it is a masterful tour-de-force of cinema and should only be seen in it's full uncut version.
Right, now I'm off to Diabolik to order it!

It's just a shame that the wrong parts of the film are what shock people.

[oaxaca]

Surely native tribes do kill animals to this day, whether for food or for religious/ritual/sacrificial purposes. Personally I don't have a problem with this sort of thing being present in any of the cannibal movies and it seems to be a common theme among them. I admit though that its not easy to watch and does add realism to the horror, which I guess is why Deodato, Lenzi, etc shoot the scenes in the first place.

[Hawkmonger]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

I still just don't get this. Not having a go Hawk as there are far more people like you than there are like me, (I'm sure!) but all the hoo haa about CH nips my arse!
Yes, the poor muskrat dies. So does the turtle, pig and monkey. But people act like CH is the epitome of animal violence on screen. There are many films with animal violence in that no one turns a hair over. We don't get revised versions of Apocalypse Now minus the water buffalo decapitation, Weekend without the pig scene, Pink Flamingos without the chicken raped to death, the 4 octopi eaten alive for Oldboy, the 20 odd cats killed in the making of Milo and Otis and many, many others.
There seems to be a hypocrisy over CH that is not justified in context with some other films. There appears to be "snobbery" in that CH is a "horror" film and therefore has no artistic merit unlike a "respected" director like Coppola.
I've heard people come out with, "There is a difference between a quick clean slaughter and a protracted death, that's why the turtle scene is alright and the muskrat isn't." Really? End result is they both died for the camera, who decides exactly how many seconds of an animals death is okay for viewer consumption? 2 seconds okay, 3, unacceptable?
"Oh, but Deodato himself prefers the cut version!" No. Stop right there. The directors cut was the first version of the film put out, after 35 years of (Mainly British people, this fine animal loving nation that watches thousands of people die on the news every week and doesn't turn a hair but erupt into foaming, rabid, wanna-be killers if a woman puts a cat in a bin for half an hour!) moaning at him and bitching, he did it to have a bloody rest from it.
Has anyone ever been, or seen footage from, a slaughter house in the UK? Far, far worse than anything in CH and we won't even go into the halal and kosher aspects.
Bottom line is CH was made to shock. It does that admirably and is testament to that in still being controversial 35 years after it was made. In that respect it is a masterful tour-de-force of cinema and should only be seen in it's full uncut version.
Right, now I'm off to Diabolik to order it!

The Apocalypse Now comparison is the most tired and pointless comparison. Need I remind you that that was a deliberately quick butchering for consumation by the local villege people as part of their annual culture. The water cattle was given a quick death with limited suffering. The ****ing Muskrat killings was unacceptable, thats why your comparison to slaugter houses is something I agree with, and a large reason why i'm vegan. That poor ****ing thing was killed is horrific fashion for a ****ing film. I don't care how big a buff you are it's just not on what it was put through before it was finally put out of it's misery.
It's not the fact animals where killed,mit's in what fashion. Slaughter and cruelty are a fine line but CH certainly falls into the latter.