Can straight to DVD be better than cinema released films?

Straight to DVD no longer has the stigma which used to to be attached to it. Some of the best films available are going straight to DVD. Look at the film Ninja, garnering far superior reviews than Ninja Assassin yet it was made to go straight to DVD. One of last years best horror films the Burrowers was another straight to DVD affair which managed to surpass nearly every horror film released theatrically.

Raging Bob

Some of the best films? Ninja sounds ****ing **** and The Burrowers sounds ****ing ****. There's a reason they go straight to dvd.

What do you mean by "managed to surpass nearly every horror film released theatrically"???

Raging Bob

Raging Bob wrote: »

Some of the best films? Ninja sounds ****ing **** and The Burrowers sounds ****ing ****. There's a reason they go straight to dvd.

What do you mean by "managed to surpass nearly every horror film released theatrically"???

I mean that it was better than the vast majority of horror films that played in cinemas. Tell you what when you watch both Ninja and The Burrowers come back to me.

Raging Bob

Better than Antichrist, Dead Snow, Drag Me to Hell etc?

Raging Bob

Raging Bob wrote: »

Better than Antichrist, Dead Snow, Drag Me to Hell etc?

Better than Antichrist, better than Dead Snow and up there with Drag Me to Hell.

Direct to DVD these days does not mean a film deemed to be too poor to be released in cinemas, most studios have a dedicated direct to DVD set up producing a number of low to medium budgeted genre pictures.

Raging Bob

Antichrist one of the better movies released last year and it's better than it? This straight to dvd film that no one has heard of and a plot that sounds incredibly boring? Hmmm...I call bull**** on this.

Galvasean

Thread split from the Tekken thread

Raging Bob

Raging Bob wrote: »

Antichrist one of the better movies released last year and it's better than it? This straight to dvd film that no one has heard of and a plot that sounds incredibly boring? Hmmm...I call bull**** on this.

Oh yes, the old let me judge something before I see it. You can't criticise the film till you watch it. I have seen both and as much as I enjoyed Antichrist The Burrowers was a far more satisfying film. It was one of the most entertaining, inventive and original films in a long time

krudler

Raging Bob wrote: »

Antichrist one of the better movies released last year and it's better than it? This straight to dvd film that no one has heard of and a plot that sounds incredibly boring? Hmmm...I call bull**** on this.

Maybe you should,y'know, watch the movie before saying its boring?

Wasnt the Hurt Locker a direct to dvd relaease? or if not it got a very limited cinema from from what i remember, none of my local cinemas got it

TonyD79

Hurt Locker wasnt straight to DVD limited release though but that applies to most good non hollywood films these days ie Moon

Fysh

If you're going to try and promote the notion of straight-to-DVD films as being better than some cinematic releases, I would've expected some mention of Ink.

While I agree that a film can only be properly judged by watching it, you have to admit that you've stuck up for a whole bunch of films that are pretty poor (eg your comments about the Asylum films being "trashy fun" rather than just plain bad). As such, if you're trying to claim that straight-to-DVD films are now genuinely matching theatrically-released films for any given quality bar (as opposed to just the "laughably awful" quality bar) your established taste in film means that you have to back up your claims.

ziedth

I can think of a good few films that are better then most cinema releases. But in general of all cinema releases compared to all direct to dvd releases, then IMO no not by a long shot.

Kess73

Yeah I think a case can be made for some straight to dvd films being better/more entertaining than some films that get a proper cinema release.


Outpost is one that comes to mind that was an enjoyable watch, and got no cinema release.


Deathwatch is another supernatural/horror themes war film that I think was straight to dvd as well.

Think Splinter was a straight to dvd film that ended up getting a limited cinema run due to demand due to rental numbers.


Two films that have become cult hits that were originally set for a straight to dvd release are Donnie Darko and The Machinist, with the latter still only getting a very limited cinema release.

Atwork

Yep, I believe some great movies can go straight to DVD.Not a horror, but one of my favorite movies The Shawshank redemption went straight to video/dvd.

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

If you're going to try and promote the notion of straight-to-DVD films as being better than some cinematic releases, I would've expected some mention of Ink.

While I agree that a film can only be properly judged by watching it, you have to admit that you've stuck up for a whole bunch of films that are pretty poor (eg your comments about the Asylum films being "trashy fun" rather than just plain bad). As such, if you're trying to claim that straight-to-DVD films are now genuinely matching theatrically-released films for any given quality bar (as opposed to just the "laughably awful" quality bar) your established taste in film means that you have to back up your claims.

I never said that straight to DVD was better than cinema releases merely pointing out that some films going straight to DVD these days are as good as those playing cinemas. The Burrowers is one of the most inventive and fun horror films to be released in recent years, that it went straight to DVD with only the most hardened horror fans discovering it is a crime. It was far more deserving off a theatrical release than films such as the Unborn, Haunting in Connecticut, etc, etc.

People saying a film is crap because it doesn't play cinemas are simply misguided and ill informed. By their reckoning 90% of all foreign films released over here are crap simply because they bypass cinemas.

A film such as Ink is the perfect example of just how good direct to DVD can be, it's a fantastic little film which made the mos to fit's meager budget to strive for something more. I actually saw Ink in the cinema and loved it as much there as I did at home.

As for my tastes in film, it's obvious from my past posts that I enjoy a wide array of films. You say the asylum films are pure bad, but it is down to this that they are so much fun. There is nothing more entertaining than watching a bad film with food and drinks on a slow Friday night.

To fully appreciate film you have to watch a wide variety of films, not just films which are regarded as being great. For example over the weekend I re watched the Seventh Seal, went to see the Book of Eli and then watched Sand Serpents. I enjoyed all three films but for different reasons. I would never compare the Seventh Seal to Sand Serpents but both are equally enjoyable albeit on completely different levels.

How many people write off a film such as Crank as being crap simply because the idea seems stupid to them? Like wise how many other people refuse to watch the Dawn of the Dead remake, simply because it's a remake.

i_inky

Atwork wrote: »

Yep, I believe some great movies can go straight to DVD.Not a horror, but one of my favorite movies The Shawshank redemption went straight to video/dvd.

Shawshank had a cinema release, although it may have been limited.

Slumdog Millionaire was on the verge of going direct to DVD until a distributer gave it a very small release in the US and it took off.

Likewise Crazy Heart which just won 2 Goldon Globes

Raging Bob

I write off Crank as it was a total piece of ****. Believe it or not, I actually went to see it in the cinema and I go to a wide selection of films, so don't go thinking you're some sort of saint watching all of these. Crank is an embarrassment of a film and there's one scene in it that was probably the worst thing I saw on screen in 2006 (rape scene). Jason Statham was pathetic (although good in The Bank Job). Maybe if I was ten years old I'd enjoy Crank but I've grown up a little since then.

It's a dumb ****ing film aimed at dumb people. Glorifying rape? **** right off.

Fysh

Raging Bob wrote: »

I write off Crank as it was a total piece of ****. Believe it or not, I actually went to see it in the cinema and I go to a wide selection of films, so don't go thinking you're some sort of saint watching all of these. Crank is an embarrassment of a film and there's one scene in it that was probably the worst thing I saw on screen in 2006 (rape scene). Jason Statham was pathetic (although good in The Bank Job). Maybe if I was ten years old I'd enjoy Crank but I've grown up a little since then.

It's a dumb ****ing film aimed at dumb people. Glorifying rape? **** right off.

Um, I may be having a pre-coffee moment but what rape scene? The only thing I remember as anything close to a rape scene was when Statham's character gets it on with Amy Smart's character in the middle of the street, which is hardly glorifying rape. I'll be honest, I'd be more uncomfortable about the scene in which he nicks that taxi and gets the driver beaten up by shouting "Al Qaeda" at a crowd nearby.

As for the rest of the film, I couldn't disagree more. It was very obviously a film made as an excuse to have action sequences, but had some very inventive tricks to keep things moving along and was far better than most action films I've seen in the last five years. I can't help but wonder whether you realise it was meant to be a film version of GTA with its tongue firmly in its cheek.

Raging Bob

Just had a quick look on IMDB and this may help you:

There is a scene in this movie where the main character needs a boost of adrenaline, so in the middle of chinatown, he starts ripping off his girlfriend's clothing. She yells "NO! NO!" and he continues to rape her. She eventually gives in, and starts liking having sex in public, so it turns out to be okay.

And don't tell me what sort of film it was meant to be. I know exactly what it was.

Fysh

Raging Bob wrote: »

Just had a quick look on IMDB and this may help you:

There is a scene in this movie where the main character needs a boost of adrenaline, so in the middle of chinatown, he starts ripping off his girlfriend's clothing. She yells "NO! NO!" and he continues to rape her. She eventually gives in, and starts liking having sex in public, so it turns out to be okay.

And don't tell me what sort of film it was meant to be. I know exactly what it was.

So you didn't notice the dark humour present when their relationship was being described? Such as her lack of awareness of his career as a hitman ("I thought you were a videogame programmer") or the way that she went from not wanting to have sex in public to berating him for not being able to perform and get it up once she had acquiesced? Or her blissful unawareness of almost everything he does while they're shown together on screen (killing gangsters on the way out of her flat, sticking his hand in the waffle toaster while she's in the other room).

No, no, you're right, this film was clearly designed with the sole aim to present the message that rape is acceptable. It's particularly interesting that you've focused on a scene that's less than 5 minutes long as being reprehensible when the majority of the rest of the film depicts armed robbery and physical violence in a comical, almost slapstick way.

Anyway, back onto the original topic:

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said that straight to DVD was better than cinema releases merely pointing out that some films going straight to DVD these days are as good as those playing cinemas. The Burrowers is one of the most inventive and fun horror films to be released in recent years, that it went straight to DVD with only the most hardened horror fans discovering it is a crime. It was far more deserving off a theatrical release than films such as the Unborn, Haunting in Connecticut, etc, etc.

People saying a film is crap because it doesn't play cinemas are simply misguided and ill informed. By their reckoning 90% of all foreign films released over here are crap simply because they bypass cinemas.

I agree that a theatrical release is hardly the be-all and end-all of cinema - I've found more things to interest me in the last year through limited releases or DVD releases (because the extremely limited theatrical release was unavailable to me) but more and more through the web. I've found some fantastic short films on the likes of Vimeo or Youtube (for example, see all the films discussed here). So I would definitely agree that wider availability of alternative distribution enabled by the internet is maturing to a point where lack of a theatrical release is no statement about a film's quality.

Raging Bob

It's a dumb ****ing film aimed at dumb people.

Wait...did she say "No, No!" or was I hearing things??

Raging Bob

Raging Bob wrote: »

Just had a quick look on IMDB and this may help you:

There is a scene in this movie where the main character needs a boost of adrenaline, so in the middle of chinatown, he starts ripping off his girlfriend's clothing. She yells "NO! NO!" and he continues to rape her. She eventually gives in, and starts liking having sex in public, so it turns out to be okay.

And don't tell me what sort of film it was meant to be. I know exactly what it was.

The film does not glorify rape, it is a very dark comedy which has a number of questionable moments which the PC police will find deeply offensive but anyone whom understands the film and what it sets out to do will recognise the scene as one of the darkest comical moments in recent cinema. To say that it glorifies rape is to say that Straw Dogs does to.

What I found truly offensive about the film was the number of people who attacked the content without having actually seen the film. It happened with Crank, it happened with Antichrist, hell it's so common these days that it's lost enar all meaning.

Fysh wrote: »

I agree that a theatrical release is hardly the be-all and end-all of cinema - I've found more things to interest me in the last year through limited releases or DVD releases (because the extremely limited theatrical release was unavailable to me) but more and more through the web. I've found some fantastic short films on the likes of Vimeo or Youtube (for example, see all the films discussed here). So I would definitely agree that wider availability of alternative distribution enabled by the internet is maturing to a point where lack of a theatrical release is no statement about a film's quality.

I think that the internet, PPV and DVD have been films greatest assets in recent years. Films such as I Sell the Dead, Ink, Time Crimes. etc, etc have all found a wide market through the evolution of new technology. Even some bigger films from name directors are getting tiny theatrical releases before garnering massive success. A Serious Man got a tiny release which for a Coens film is quite unusual. I have no doubt that it will be a massive hit on DVD.

I've seen all the videos on that page and agree that there is an abundance of talent out there. That any budding film maker can pick up a camera and make their film is something to behold and bodes well for the future of cinema, that is if we can get them to shy away from video diaries about the hardship of teenage life.

Galvasean

It glorifies rape about as much as it glorifies armed robbery, dangerous driving, shooting people, gobbling up hospital supplies, fighting a guy while falling out of a helicopter....

Film =/= Reality.

jeffreylebowski

I found Raging Bob's comments insulting a previous poster kind of offensive, and didn't agree with his stance on Crank... but I suppose I should get on topic and talk about straight to DVD movies.

I was actually thinking about this recently and one thing occurred to me:

Back in the days of the Hollywood studio system, they had B-Movies. Some of my favourite films of the era were B-movies in fact. Anthony Mann, Fritz Lang, Joseph Lewis, various others made great films on low budgets (though even then, of course a lot of B movies were dreadful and unwatchable).

Now, there's no real "B-Movies" that get cinematic release, the new home of the B-Movie seems like it's DVD.

I've seen some terrible straight to DVD movies, and to be honest I wouldn't even try to advocate them in general as being high quality but there are definitely gems. That's part of the appeal for me. Everyone knows (or at least has been told by a few people) that The Dark Knight is a good movie, but we might not have heard much buzz about Something like Red , a movie that went straight to DVD here that I really liked.

But yeah that's the main thrust of my point, I feel like they're the new B-Movie, and as such they're a mixed bag, some of which are those delicious ones with the orange centre.

Kess73

Galvasean wrote: »

It glorifies rape about as much as it glorifies armed robbery, dangerous driving, shooting people, gobbling up hospital supplies, fighting a guy while falling out of a helicopter....

Film =/= Reality.

I'm sorry but it does not glorify fighting a guy whilst falling from a helicopter. It is quite true to life in that respect.

Decuc500

Atwork wrote: »

Yep, I believe some great movies can go straight to DVD.Not a horror, but one of my favorite movies The Shawshank redemption went straight to video/dvd.

I saw The Shawshank Redemption in the cinema. It wasn't a limited release. It was as big a cinema release as any other film released in Ireland at the time.