Mill Creek: Gorehouse Greats and Too Cool For School Collections - 8/25

[Norm de Plume]

Man, that's a collection of crap, right there.

[Brian T]

Originally Posted by Norm de Plume

Man, that's a collection of crap, right there.

Hey, now, they're not all bad! (unless you're just referring to those edited versions being included on the new set, of course. That IS a load of crap!)

POM POM GIRLS (uncut), MALIBU BEACH and THE VAN are quintessential examples of the 70's "adult" high-school dramedy genre (COACH tried to repeat the formula only minus the skin, so it suffers a bit for that). BEACH GIRLS is dumb fun in the, ahem, right frame of mind, and HUNK is actually savvier than a B-movie has right to be (even if has too many dudes in plum-smugglers for my tastes).

The only one truly worth avoiding is JOCKS, which is just dreadful.

[cdmac2007]

Just an FYI for all reading this thread... when i was at BCI, the last two transfers i did were WAX and BLOOD.
Unfortunatly, what you see is all that was in the vaults at Crown. I believe both were 16mm too.... or maybe it was only one of them... I forget.
I was planning on editing part of the old full-frame version of DRACULA into the transfer to replace the bad spots, but they shut us down and we didn't get to it.
So, what you see was a work in progress that I didn't get to finish.

Originally Posted by ParadiseVendors

I gave up on the Dodgers and went home early (thinking I should be able to count that game as horror for the challenge).

Blood of Dracula's Castle is 16x9. Pretty horrible source material though, scratched about as bad as I have seen a DVD release for the first reel or two. The scratches get better as the movie goes on but it never looked clean.

Nightmare in Wax is also 16x9. It is relatively scratch free, but not a great transfer. It has some compression issues, its a little bit artifacty. It's also pretty dark, but not at all unwatchable. In fact I am watching the movie right now.

[Josh-da-man]

Seems strange that they would go through the trouble of doing 16:9 anamorphic transfers only to compress the shit out of them when putting on disc.

[cdmac2007]

Mill Creek didn't do the transfers. They are all the BCI masters.

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man

Seems strange that they would go through the trouble of doing 16:9 anamorphic transfers only to compress the shit out of them when putting on disc.

[droidguy1119]

You guys might already know this, but the Drive-In Cult Classics Vol. 3, which can still be found for $9.99 at most Best Buys and Fry's, has the full-screen, 89m version of The Pom-Pom Girls. The menu is even from the Starlite DVD, so if anyone is looking for it, Drive-In Cult Classics Vol. 3 is the way to go.

[mdnitoil]

Originally Posted by droidguy1119

You guys might know, but the Drive-In Cult Classics Vol. 3, which can still be found for $9.99 at most Best Buys and Fry's, has the full-screen, 89m version of The Pom-Pom Girls. The menu is even from the Starlite DVD.

The version on Drive-In 3 is the same as from the Starlite. If you're looking for an uncut Pom Pom, then this is an alternate place to find it. Likewise, Drive-In 4 has the Starlite version of The Van, so another source for an uncut clean version. On this latest set, The Van appears to be identical to those two releases, which would mean an improvement over the School Dazed set however obviously still the old crappy Pom Pom.

This was the main reason I was giving aspect ratios and running times for this latest collection. I figured that was really the only information that those who are interested would care about. They could take it and compare to previous versions.

[Norm de Plume]

Originally Posted by Brian T

Hey, now, they're not all bad! (unless you're just referring to those edited versions being included on the new set, of course. That IS a load of crap!)

Meh, I'm just not into the "so bad it's good" ilk of films. I bought one of the Drive-in collections just for shits and giggles, and the only two entries that approached being worth my time were Best Friends (close to good) and The Sister-in-Law (fair).
The Teacher and Malibu High were just positively terrible, and the other three were only a shade less bad. Why waste one's time with bad films when there are so many good ones out there?

[mdnitoil]

Better yet, why even bother reading and commenting in a thread that's clearly discussing releases of this nature?

[Norm de Plume]

Perhaps you have something resembling a point, but aren't you a little fresh to be swaggering around like a wanna-be mod?

[mdnitoil]

My mistake. I was just trying to point out a simple but effective way to save you the pain of seeing such inferior films being given any consideration, and us the pain of having to read about it. Seemed like a win-win to me.

[Norm de Plume]

Your mistake, indeed. See, there is room on these forums for a little something called a difference of opinion. What I initially wrote might, if viewed very strictly, be considered a "threadcrap", which is frowned upon, but I don't think so because there's no presumption in the OP's opening that contrarian opinions are unwelcome. So, I made my little initial off-handed negative comment, then proceeded to have a little congenial give-and-take with another member. It would have all continued sans friction if you hadn't entered with your unnecessary snide comment.

[droidguy1119]

Originally Posted by Norm de Plume

Your mistake, indeed. See, there is room on these forums for a little something called a difference of opinion. What I initially wrote might, if viewed very strictly, be considered a "threadcrap", which is frowned upon, but I don't think so because there's no presumption in the OP's opening that contrarian opinions are unwelcome. So, I made my little initial off-handed negative comment, then proceeded to have a little congenial give-and-take with another member. It would have all continued sans friction if you hadn't entered with your unnecessary snide comment.

Weeeeeelll...I'm pretty sure threadcraps are considered bad regardless of the OP's opinion.

[Brian T]

Originally Posted by Norm de Plume

Meh, I'm just not into the "so bad it's good" ilk of films. I bought one of the Drive-in collections just for shits and giggles, and the only two entries that approached being worth my time were Best Friends (close to good) and The Sister-in-Law (fair).
The Teacher and Malibu High were just positively terrible, and the other three were only a shade less bad. Why waste one's time with bad films when there are so many good ones out there?

Five derailed posts later, perhaps it's time for some congenial give-and-take . . .

For the most part, these are not "bad" films, thus they only waste the time of those who paint all such films with the same brush. "So bad it's good" doesn't apply to most of the films in these collections, as many of them do not have reputations for ineptitude, and likewise many of them were quite successful upon their initial release. I think one needs to move a fair bit down the food chain to find real dreck worthy of mockery; certainly a few rungs below mini-studio Crown International, where attempts were at least made to make marketable (read: exploitable), modestly successful pictures on tight budgets. Yeah, I know that these sets DO have the odd title that barely deserves mention (such as WEEKEND PASS, which is very poor in many departments), but those are in the minority. Many of these shows may not have been made with mountains of money, but they were made by people putting a decent effort into the finished product, and that effort almost always shows through the inevitable rough edges.

It's somewhat unfortunate that the "drive-in" or "grindhouse" connotation of these sets for some people automatically conjures up images of a kind of trash cinema made to separate rubes from their money back in the day, films to be watched only for shits 'n giggles when one needs a break from real cinema.

A lot of the films in these sets deserve better treatment than even BCI or Mill Creek has given them. Fair enough that BCI generally tried to source decent prints where they could (though this crap with THE POM POM GIRLS really gets tiresome), but I can only recall one movie in any of the Crown 8 Packs that got something extra to give it context, and that was the above-average VAN NUYS BLVD. (1979) which featured a very informative commentary track by the director. They should have done more of those, especially for films like POM POM, THE VAN and MALIBU BEACH, as those are so representative of Crown's late-teen fare of the period, films which, because the plots were deliberately kept simple, have come to serve as erzatz time capsules of the SoCal lifestyle of the time.




I thought THE TEACHER could have been better, but the plot kept me interested throughout, and Angel Tompkins, well . . .

[Norm de Plume]

Originally Posted by Brian T

For the most part, these are not "bad" films, thus they only waste the time of those who paint all such films with the same brush. "So bad it's good" doesn't apply to most of the films in these collections, as many of them do not have reputations for ineptitude, and likewise many of them were quite successful upon their initial release.

Success has no bearing on quality, as witnessed by the weekly box-office listings. And drive-ins in the '70s were not exactly frequented by cineastes, but rather groups of teens looking for a rowdy get-together and couples looking to get in some necking. The movies were secondary.

I think one needs to move a fair bit down the food chain to find real dreck worthy of mockery; certainly a few rungs below mini-studio Crown International, where attempts were at least made to make marketable (read: exploitable), modestly successful pictures on tight budgets.

An attempt to make marketable, exploitable movies also doesn't translate to an attempt to make movies of quality. Malibu High (complete with a beach-chase finale set to what later became the theme music of "People's Court") and The Teacher are down there among the worst movies I have seen, and I've seen some shit in my time.

I thought THE TEACHER could have been better, but the plot kept me interested throughout, and Angel Tompkins, well . . .

Maybe we just have different criteria for what's good and bad, but of the Drive-In Cult Classics compendium I referenced, only Best Friends and, to a lesser extent, The Sister-in-Law, seemed made with serious intentions. The rest were just softcore T&A exploitation enterprises (Cindy and Donna, Malibu High), weird bits of nonsensical psychedelia (Pick-Up), inept, out-of-this-world swill (The Teacher), or totally forgettable action throwaways (Trip with the Teacher). Having said all that, I think Mill Creek dug up truly top-notch masters of all eight films; much better than they deserved.
I'm no elitist who only watches French cinema (though I do savour it). I love a good low-budget flick and have scads of them in my collection, but I don't like bad no-budget rubbish. I guess it's a "One man's trash is another man's treasure" quandary.

With that, I'll bow out of the discussion and leave the remainder for folks who want to extol the merits of these films.

[Brian T]

Originally Posted by Norm de Plume

Success has no bearing on quality, as witnessed by the weekly box-office listings.

Boy, we don't hear that very often!

Sometimes, quality can bring some measure of success, as it did with many of the films in these collections. This has little to do with cineastes, as you already know; they're something I find in short supply on broad-topic internet forums like this one anyways, thank gawd. Norm's thoughts on drive-in behaviour of the day ("necking, rowdy get-togethers) are only partly true, of course, but that's the lingering stereotype/nostalgia that exists about the places. Sad, really. These films also played in theatres that weren't grindhouses, but thanks to these collections, they've all been given that "42nd Street" vibe for the rest of their days. In a way, that's probably the only marketing "hook" left available after all the books that have been written about the genres.

Obviously, I'm probably talking to the wind with all this, since Norm's left us, but I'll throw some more thoughts out there based on his comments in case anyone else would like to chime in.

An attempt to make marketable, exploitable movies also doesn't translate to an attempt to make movies of quality.

But it can sometimes. And in the case of some of the movies in these sets, it did. Anyone comparing any of them to major studio product of the era deserves to be let down, though.

Malibu High (complete with a beach-chase finale set to what later became the theme music of "People's Court") and The Teacher are down there among the worst movies I have seen, and I've seen some shit in my time.

With it's premise, MALIBU HIGH could have been a far, far better film than it turned out to be. It still deserves it's cult following, but from a technical and acting standpoint, it's unimpressive. I'm not sure how a piece of library music becoming the theme of a later television series constitutes legitimate criticism, but have at it. In 1979, few people had heard that piece outside of radio commercials in regional markets. And it was professionally done session music that, like most of the other tracks in the film (and many films at this price level), fit the filmmakers' needs and budget.

By the way, I didn't realize that all T&A exploitation enterprises weren't made with any serious though toward production quality, marketability, etc. Interesting, that . . .

Maybe we just have different criteria for what's good and bad. I guess it's a "One man's trash is another man's treasure" quandary.

Undoubtedly.

With that, I'll bow out of the discussion and leave the remainder for folks who want to extol the merits of these films.

That's alright, because many of these films do have merit. Just not all of them. Too bad someone didn't start a more specific thread rather than having this discussion get lost to the ages when this thread inevitably dries up.

And to think of the time I could've saved typing! I have no problem with reasoned criticism of these films, even the worst of the worst, because they're just as worthy of it as any other film from top-tier to the bottom of the barrel. But I suppose to me that should go beyond "nonsensical, inept swill, totally forgettable, positively terrible or wastes of time" without providing at least some helpful reasons, or something more than a "because they just are" attitude. But, if a person is predisposed to disliking (or mocking) almost all of them, I can understand how it would be a waste of one's time to elaborate. If you click "see my other reviews" on that School Dazed collection at Amazon (linked above somewhere), you'll see quite a few reviews for Media Blasters 3-Packs, 4-Packs, BCI 8-packs, etc., where I'm extremely harsh, on the films that deserve it, just in case anyone is tempted to infer that I'm just madly in love with every B-movie ever made. It's definitely an ongoing pet project, but obviously this arena of filmmaking produces just as many "bad" films (however one chooses to apply the term) as all the major and indie studios of any era before of since. This isn't about blanket praising every film in these collections; it's about smoking out the genuinely good and enjoyable ones. Several are indeed not very good, but I've seen a lot worse further down the quality ladder, and it goes a LOT lower than anything put out by Crown International (just try getting through the second Ray Dennis Steckler box set some time!).

Oh well. These sets aren't exactly best sellers, so I'm not too worried that this is about as in-depth as the discussion of them as will likely ever get at a catch-all site like DVDTalk.

[Norm de Plume]

I'll pipe up once more, since I don't like someone to get away with mischaracterizing or misunderstanding what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Brian T

Sometimes, quality can bring some measure of success, as it did with many of the films in these collections.

I don't know what you mean with this, as it doesn't respond to anything I wrote. Perhaps you meant to say that sometimes the base intention to make a cheap exploiter can result in a good film. That's true. For instance, many of the films from the maligned Canadian tax-shelter days of the '70s and early '80s are in fact very good.

This has little to do with cineastes, as you already know; they're something I find in short supply on broad-topic internet forums like this one anyways, thank gawd.

So you're not a cineaste? Odd that you'd be hanging out here.

Definition: cin·e·aste also cin·e·ast (sn-st) or cin·é·aste (sn-äst)
n.
1. A film or movie enthusiast.
2. A person involved in filmmaking.

These films also played in theatres that weren't grindhouses, but thanks to these collections, they've all been given that "42nd Street" vibe for the rest of their days. In a way, that's probably the only marketing "hook" left available after all the books that have been written about the genres.

Nothing wrong with the "42nd Street vibe" if it's attached to a good movie; something like Maniac, for one.

But it can sometimes. And in the case of some of the movies in these sets, it did.

The odd one, yes, but to say "many of them are good" is ludicrous in my judgment. It's a little thing called subjectivity.

Anyone comparing any of them to major studio product of the era deserves to be let down, though.

I'm not especially interested in "major studio products". Not at all, actually.

With it's premise, MALIBU HIGH could have been a far, far better film than it turned out to be.

You don't say.

I'm not sure how a piece of library music becoming the theme of a later television series constitutes legitimate criticism, but have at it.

No? I happen to think the style and placement of music in a film are important considerations, and ridiculing an absurdly incongruous piece of music is legitimate criticism of an aspect of a film. Budget has little to do with music. Look what Tobe Hooper did for Chainsaw with what sound like pots and pans, or what Carl Zittrer did for Bob Clark's films with little more than a few piano chords or a violin.

By the way, I didn't realize that all T&A exploitation enterprises weren't made with any serious thought toward production quality, marketability, etc. Interesting, that . . .

There you must have completely misunderstood me. I maintain that T&A pictures are not made with a mind toward seriousness, which is what I'm after. That's not to say they can't be well-made from a technical standpoint, but I have no interest in the T&A genre. If you do, that's fine with me.

I have no problem with reasoned criticism of these films, even the worst of the worst, because they're just as worthy of it as any other film from top-tier to the bottom of the barrel. But I suppose to me that should go beyond "nonsensical, inept swill, totally forgettable, positively terrible or wastes of time" without providing at least some helpful reasons, or something more than a "because they just are" attitude.

Critiques are usually full of such adjectives. See, one uses them as descriptors in appraising quality. But I'll be the first to admit that what I've provided here is not in-depth. The movies I mentioned are not top-of-mind for me. I only remember that they were awful and that the two worst rated 1/10, which is a rare rating for me to give. However, as I have written twice now, and which you seem to willfully ignore, Best Friends was a very decent drama and The Sister-in-Law was not bad.
What substantive comments have you supplied other than essentially saying, "because they aren't"? (That's not an invitation for a dissertation.)
"With it's premise, MALIBU HIGH could have been a far, far better film than it turned out to be. It still deserves it's cult following, but from a technical and acting standpoint, it's unimpressive." is hardly a critique of Kaelian erudition.

But, if a person is predisposed to disliking (or mocking) almost all of them, I can understand how it would be a waste of one's time to elaborate.

You are predisposed towards dismissing me because I dislike movies you like, so it would be a waste of my time to elaborate even if I had the memory of these films to do so.

Gee, I thought this exchange started off on a rather affable note. Guess I misread the tone of your first response.

[Alan Smithee]

What's wrong with THE TEACHER? It has one of the best title songs ever recorded!

I remember JOCKS being pretty bad but might be worth checking out again- it has a 1986 copyright but the tennis tournament banners in the movie say 1984, so it took them a while to finish it. The picture on the VHS cover was more exciting than anything that happened in the movie. I think it was the first movie I ever saw with Christopher Lee, and of course the great Donald Gibb is in it too.

[Brian T]

I'm not trying to "get away" with anything. My apologies, though, that my attempts to at least qualify my enjoyment of certain movies in these collections with more than just "I love them" or "they're awesome!" or "T&A rules!" or something superficial like that weren't akin to Kaelian erudition (good one!). I'll never achieve that, I'm afraid. I'm not a high-minded cineaste like her (my bad with the term. This is what a I meant, but failed to clarify). Frankly, I was just trying to be more thoughtful in what little background I was providing to my favouring of certain films. I still don't think "nonsensical, inept swill, totally forgettable, positively terrible or wastes of time" are particularly enlightening in the same way, which is probably why the accusation of "thread crapping" was leveled and an interesting thread became a chore. But, as you note:

But I'll be the first to admit that what I've provided here is not in-depth. The movies I mentioned are not top-of-mind for me.

Which is why I suspect some folks here wondered why you felt compelled to weigh in at all; based on other comments in the thread, you're not really into these particular films anyways.

Come to think of it, I'm no longer sure how your initial post in this thread ("Man, that's a collection of crap, right there.") wasn't a threadcrap because it seems like you only have one, previously-released set with titles that aren't in this new one. Have you seen the movies in this new Gorehouse Greats set to know that it's a collection of crap with certainty?

Please don't infer that I'm willfully ignoring your mild praise for two movies in the collection you did buy. I also like them, possibly even more than you did, but since we were debating different sides of the fence in regards to other films, I didn't feel it was necessary to address those two pictures, which I now realize was wrong.

I don't know what you mean with this, as it doesn't respond to anything I wrote. Perhaps you meant to say that sometimes the base intention to make a cheap exploiter can result in a good film. That's true. For instance, many of the films from the maligned Canadian tax-shelter days of the '70s and early '80s are in fact very good.

I meant exactly what I said (and it does respond to what you wrote): sometimes quality can bring a degree of success at the box office, even with films from Crown International. Not all of them, but many of them. This other point is obviously valid as well--that the intention to make a cheap exploiter can result in an above-average product.

The odd one, yes, but to say "many of them are good" is ludicrous in my judgment.

In my judgment, it's not. And surely you're aware that I'm referring to all the films in all of these Drive-In Cult and Gorehouse Great collections, right? I didn't exactly gloss over it in my posts above. Several of the ones I mentioned previously are not even in the one pack you bought for shits 'n giggles (though a few do turn up in The Too Cool For School Collection). Therefore, I'm confident in my wholly subjective opinion that many of the films in the Crown International library are, in fact, good, based on my unscientific watching every available film in every available BCI/Mill Creek "Crown" set that's come out so far. Few if any are great, but that's Crown for you.

It's a little thing called subjectivity.

As you said.

What substantive comments have you supplied other than essentially saying, "because they aren't"? (That's not an invitation for a dissertation.)

I gave a bit more in support of the films I liked than you did against the films you hated, even if it wasn't much in your eyes apparently. Sure, much of it was subjective, but far more than one or two dismissive words.

No? I happen to think the style and placement of music in a film are important considerations, and ridiculing an absurdly incongruous piece of music is legitimate criticism of an aspect of a film. Budget has little to do with music.

Budget has a lot to do with it IF there's no money for a composer. That's when filmmakers turn to stock libraries, as they did throughout MALIBU HIGH. That track is a generic piece of chase music that is perfectly acceptable in the context of MALIBU HIGH'S climax. The problem is that far, far too many writers and reviewers since then have fixated on it use in a later TV series. If you wanted your criticism to sound legitimate, you should never have made the connection to THE PEOPLE'S COURT as if that was the reason the music was inappropriate. In 1979, it was just another piece of affordable stock music in a film scored with nothing but that kind of music. Fine and dandy for anyone--everyone!--to think it's wrong-headed or inappropriate for reasons of personal taste or that can be further elaborated on, but suggesting it was silly or ludicrous or inappropriate because it was used on a later TV series is not legitimate criticism of the use of that piece of music in this particular film.

There you must have completely misunderstood me. I maintain that T&A pictures are not made with a mind toward seriousness, which is what I'm after. That's not to say they can't be well-made from a technical standpoint, but I have no interest in the T&A genre. If you do, that's fine with me.

I do, just as I have an interest in all the other films in these collections, as do others in this thread. Or we did, back when it was interesting.

You are predisposed towards dismissing me because I dislike movies you like, so it would be a waste of my time to elaborate even if I had the memory of these films to do so.

No I'm not, and no it wouldn't. Elaboration from the start (especially that first post) would have prevented a lot. It would have given me a better understanding of what, in general or specifically, turns you off about the films you don't like in this collection, might've enlightened me to your overall knowledge of "grindhouse" or "drive-in" cinema (of which there clearly is some, though I learned that through subsequent responses) and perhaps even given us a common ground on which to debate even these films more deeply. But I secretly think you feel elaboration would be a waste of your time anyways because you flat out don't consider these movies worthy of it, and not just because you fear I would dismiss you for it, something I've yet to do to anyone in this thread, certainly.

But you're right, at this point it would be a waste of your time, since the fun dried up a while back.

Gee, I thought this exchange started off on a rather affable note. Guess I misread the tone of your first response.

I guess you did. It was affable.

(and really, it started off on an "arguable" thread crap, but it often does on forums, doesn't it? )

[asianxcore]

Is this (Gorehouse Greats) still showing up as $5 at Walmart or was that only during Halloween?

[Liontamer]

Originally Posted by asianxcore

Is this (Gorehouse Greats) still showing up as $5 at Walmart or was that only during Halloween?

Still saw it at my local WM for $5 today.

[Mike UFC]

Yeah. Picked up a copy at Walmart today. Glad to finally find it.

[Rubix]

is the school dazed set supposed to be in a regular sized dvd case? because the other bci sets like cult classics 1-4 have fatter dvd cases, but my school dazed is regular and it is annoying me. i think since i bought it used online it was from a rental place or something. not sure.

[mdnitoil]

School Dazed comes in a regular keep case, probably because it's only two discs. For what it's worth, the first Drive In was also a standard keep case because it was only two discs. The cases didn't get wide until Drive In 2, when they expanded the number of discs.

[Mister Peepers]

I picked up Too Cool For School at Big Lots for $7