Night of the Demons 3 DVD?

Discussion in 'General' started by eric_angelus, Aug 1, 2005.

  1. Zombie Dude

    Zombie Dude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Well at least we both enjoy the sequel. It's cheesy goodness I love to watch with friends and a few drinks :D
     
  2. chrismac87

    chrismac87 Zombie Eater

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    28
    This ^^^

    :banana:
     
  3. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    The entire franchise is fairly shallow. I'm not claiming it isn't with any of the defenses of the sequel. (And, I'm only defending the first half at that. The energy level is high and the performances are extremely enigmatic. These "douchebags" actually Command my attention, they force me to pay attention. No matter how detestable you find them, this is not a lazy group of characters. The director actually imbues them with what I find to be a uniformly lively quality. Now... to relent, slightly: at best, what this all does is keep the film afloat as a piece of fluff. Hell, I recently went on a very long walk off a short peer to give Phantasm III some long overdue credit and even then I wasn't claiming the film was high on substance. Most horror films, including the good ones, aren't actually meaningful. Not very. It takes a real director with some talent or outstanding cred to make an ideology in the text work. Your reading of the first film's alleged high-minded ambitions, unless you're claiming they are unintentional, is embarrassingly off-the-mark. Especially since the film is an extremely bottom-barrel'd horror-"comedy" deriving humor from the same class stereotypes you're attempting to give credence to. To Night of the Demons, these "public school" kids are freaks in the freakshow, not one shred of integrity paid to them whatsoever; including - says I - anyone's examples of so-called "good" characters.

    The very important distinction I am drawing between the original and the sequel is that I believe the group of teens in the sequel are not even close to being mean-spirited by nature. As a group, and thank you for painting them with such a broad brush because now I can tell you weren't paying attention. In context of the attitude of the filmmakers toward the characters, the first half of the sequel doesn't demonize the sexual behaviors of the teens. Only the uptight nun does. It also puts the men and women on an equal playing field, in how they express themselves. Are they simplistic? Sure. But they aren't douchebags. They're sheep. There is a very key fundamental difference, and surprisingly a very true-to-life one. If you remember the movie, they weren't all standing around, waiting for anything to happen to the sister. So, they were not going to the house to partake in torturing the girl or delight in it: they were just going where their friends were going. They were guilty of casual apathy, if anything. Or, herd-like behavior. The sort of thing that would, in fact, be well-covered by your reading of the film as "private school kids" being raised to spread the conservatism of their benefactors through the entire social system of their peers.

    Also, so much for your "typical 90's" argument: the plot of NotD 2 has root in the 1980's. Terror Train has a set of "protagonists" going along with a cruel prank, one of them noneotherthan Jamie Lee Curtis. Is she a douchebag with no shot at redeeming herself? No, because she felt bad about what happened and made sure to slam anyone who laughed about it. The other friends didn't, at least not on the surface. Are they iredeemable? No. Because it wasn't in their nature to try and drive people crazy. They went along with it because they wanted to see what would happen. This is a very common thing with people, lots of people do it. Which is true to life, no pretension about it: people are sheep. They want to have fun, but they also want to fit in and stick with their friends. But at least these friends don't treat each other like shit. The sister (or, in TT, Kenny), sure: maybe. If they didn't see her as trying to fit in or a genuine member of their clique. The sister really was more of a plot turning-key. The sort of thing that was covered by my reading of the 2nd half of the film as abusive to the first. I already covered this, you can't claim I was being hypocritical.

    You still don't understand the point I am making: objectively, people doing something wrong doesn't make them an irredeemable character. It's the way they act about it. It's if they counter criticism (which is one of the only credits I give the first movie: no shortage of someone to throw back some equivalent of "you pig!") with "FUCK YOU, GIMME SOMETHING" like an uncaring, unfeeling asshole, someone who can't even process what they're doing. The characters in the sequel do recklessly ignore what's going on, because that is The Mindset of The Group. See what I'm getting at here? That portrayal shows some sense of forethought on the part of the writing. Something that's bad in life. I am not defending what the characters did. But the way the film wrote them doing it. They could all redeem themselves. At any point in the film, even the bitchy girl (maybe not the blond guy). Well... maybe not, but they did kind of cast her in the mold of Chris from Carrie- we actually knew what her damage was. (We didn't have to accept her as a decent person, we just had to see the Nun was worse or encouraging her bad behavior by ruler-slapping instead of trying to teach a lesson.) As a group, they were not intentionally portrayed as beyond reproach- so desensitized that they would kick the sister when she was down. And, if I remember the film correctly, nobody cheered what happened on. In fact, some of them said it was wrong.

    But again, even with the best of intentions, I respect a film more for showing a genuine human flaw than portraying a group of people as robots in a film with a sense of humor defined best by a scene where a mother gleefully offers a teenage guest SHIT LOGS on a goddamned silver tray. I almost dare you to try and articulate that one for me in lofty visual terms. That's not subversion, it's pandering. The original film is sloppy. The characters are RAMPAGING, systematically selfish, rotten to the core assholes who didn't care about anyone but themselves. They all went to that "party" to get off in some way. They are Extreme Users. AND the film glorified this. Exploited it for cheap "thrills," using Clear Sexism (I'm not dropping this "bitch" thing- that word is to Night of the Demons what "fuck" is to Blair Witch Project) for laughs, and its sense of humor was morbidly childish. If a roomful of babies or a pet store were set ablaze killing everything alive in it in one scene, the film would have made a joke about it. Because: it thought it was being anarchic. Because the film is pandering, not subversive.

    I'll give you credit where it's due: you sure worded your interpretation of the sequel well. To a point, I can't disagree. With your take on what it means. But, in comparison to the original, I sure can. You have not presented a single legit hypocrisy in my view on the films. Those worthless wads in the original were nasty to everyone. These characters here are actual friends who generally give a damn about each other and I believed that. I didn't believe anyone did in the first film, even if it was intended- and, even if they did, I didn't care. The film alienated anyone who would be receptive to a true analogical reading by making the characters impossible to defend. I more than demonstrated that the girls generally couldn't stand the sight of each other and the guys treated them like shit too. Try, just try, to provide proof that this was the same in the sequel.

    There are no "good" characters in the movie. They are all irredeemable shits. If a single one of them was portrayed as being irritated by another, it was for the same reason as the person irritating them = entitlement. The user feels entitled to use anyone they want to, and the person they're messing with has been programmed to roll their eyes when they hear anything they don't like. (Something that rubs me a lot like the kind of thing you were hoping I'd buy was true of the sequel.) And, still, the same motivation and mentality remains in their character as all the others: the main blonde female protagonist is portrayed as uptight by virtue of the film Intentionally and Actively Trying to Derive Laughs from the Douchebags. Your argument is invalidated by the entire tone of the film. It isn't trying to say that douchebags suck, they're trying to say "isn't this amusing?" No, it sure as hell isn't. Whether the sister is a plot point or not in the sequel, that film Intentionally and Actively shows that what Shirley (I just looked up her name) is doing to the sister is wrong.

    I respect the sequel for showing us this because, even if the original had better intentions, it meant to grate on the viewer. And that is no case of a genre-necessity being filled. The film is at-heart a horror-comedy with a shitty sense of humor (literally, if you remember the poo sticks scene) and I don't consider a genre necessity stopping the train to scan non-characters for cheap exploits. And, if I did, Class of Nuke 'Em High did it much better. The film remained a silly, antagonistic horror-comedy while being a compellingly ugly, nasty, gritty, cheap thing as a realized effect (I consider the film a far greater stamp of Troma's than their calling card, Toxic Avenger) rather than a blueprint- the whole film made me feel dirty and creeped me out, which stuck with me, instead of merely pissing me off. Demons stuck with me too but watching the film was a waste of my time. That's not what I expect to be left with as a feeling after watching a film as hyped up as this one. Especially when you start examining it and find conclusively that it's nothing more than pandering.


    Against the church? If you actually watched the film, you remember that the Priest had beliefs Standing Directly-in-Contrast to the hate-your-body Demon Fighting Sister. So, it was demonstrating different points of view within the religion held by different people. And that clearly shows more thinking in the writing for the sequel than anything in the original.


    She has martial arts skills and uses weapons... that's only stereotypical if you think Girlfriend from Hell dictates popular trends.


    The film did not dog anyone for being turned on (again, I admitted it was fluff), nor did it show the teens as having an attitude of "Fuck You, I Need to Get Off NOW!" (except maybe the blond guy). The first film did. Throughout. This could have worked if anyone were convinced the film had any depth. But, even with the fans, people came for the exploitation and to enjoy the asshole characters. Which I find lazy in comparison to the sequel which didn't keep stopping all the time. The sequel's pacing is far superior.


    Sorry, but after seeing Witchboard, you'll have to go a lot further than that to convince me Kevin S. Tenney is a deep filmmaker.

    No sale.


    The line is: "you have pretty skin, give it to us!" Just so you know who you're talking to. ;)


    Don't give me this glory-of-the-80's bullshit. I love the 80's in the genre probably as much as you do (and I never pretended the 90's were better than the 80's, just they were vastly superior to 2003-now), but don't you dare preach to me about teeth. Because: the 1970's. The 80's could never compare to the 70's in terms of voracity, insight, and integrity in the actual text. Killer Party was Night of the Demons done right. Night of the Demons is a brainless, pointless, and cheap - therefore entirely impotent - ripoff of KP, Demons, The Evil Dead films, etc. If you want this kind of movie with a silly tone and unlikable characters but some fuckin' balls- watch Rabid Grannies. Also, Zombie Dude, so we're clear: that is the film for this whole franchise (all 3 movies) to beat. And it can't.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2014
  4. vidjunkie

    vidjunkie Team Blu

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Now I wish we could get our hands on this.
     
  5. evildeadfan123

    evildeadfan123 Sam & Dean Winchester

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Missouri
    I watched Night of The Demons 2 Blu-Ray from Olive, and it was fantastic. Sure beats my DVD copy. I'm not holding my breath for Part 3 to come out anytime soon. The DVD IMO was dark in some scenes, and the Blu-Ray was so much brighter and the picture quality was so much better on Blu-Ray for Part 2 than the DVD. I own the entire trilogy, and the 3rd was the weakest of the three.
     
  6. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I did enjoy the first half of it. The second half, ignoring my huge case against the moralizing b.s., was a little too much kitchen-sinking for my tastes. All at once. I remember the characters and the performances. The actress playing Shirley was downright creepy. The whole film long- which fascinates me. I mean, if you want me to pay attention to your movie- that's a good start. A character that is blank-slated on the page really comes to life with the performance. And this film was full of excellent acting from the teens which kept me on my toes.

    I get so bored with the whole Cheerleader Camp, laughable-douchebag subgenre of the 80's. I hear the arguments against the 90's but the filmmaking was more fresh and crisp when it came to the same hollow cliches of teen-horror. Pacing improved with dialogue, acting improves with sharp editing and zippier pacing, characters become more interesting when the acting improves. The 90's really did have something on a technical level that holds my interest firmly. Until the special effects kick in. I wouldn't blame a single person who hates 90's films almost conclusively on the basis of the same "show everything" ethic with such weak effects. What was going on at that time- did all the masters of the FX craft really leave for Hollywood or something? (And leave no proteges behind?)
     
  7. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,068
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    I thought that as well? DVD-Fanatic, is this your name on Bluray.com?
     
  8. zbinks

    zbinks Beset by Creatures of the Deep

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,444
    Likes Received:
    3,233
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    DuPage County, Illinois
    I don't think they're the same person. I haven't come across another poster that's as hung up on Ginger Snaps as theprestige85.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2014
  9. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,068
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    I know DVDFanatic is a huge fan of that film as well, although maybe not quite as passionate :lol:.
     
  10. CPT HOOK

    CPT HOOK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    8,725
    Likes Received:
    3,880
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    US

Share This Page