criterionforum.org

That poster rules

domino harvey wrote: Thu Jul 02, 2026 1:32 am That poster rules

Indeed. I have no goddamn clue what these specialty labels are thinking of with their recent cover art choices. If you're spending $50 on a vintage movie, can't you get the original poster or at least something that evokes the style of posters of the movie's era?

Can artwork slap without ruling? Or does anything that slaps also rule? Where's Jon Wurster when we need him?

Monterey Jack wrote: Thu Jul 02, 2026 2:10 am can't you get the original poster or at least something that evokes the style of posters of the movie's era?

I mean, this release is going to have a cover sleeve for the disc case, alternative art on the reverse side, a two-sided slipcover, and a two-sided slipbox. I bet the poster art makes it in there somewhere!

swo17 wrote: Thu Jul 02, 2026 2:47 am

Monterey Jack wrote: Thu Jul 02, 2026 2:10 am can't you get the original poster or at least something that evokes the style of posters of the movie's era?

I mean, this release is going to have a cover sleeve for the disc case, alternative art on the reverse side, a two-sided slipcover, and a two-sided slipbox. I bet the poster art makes it in there somewhere!

I'm sure it will be, but why make the cover most people will see first that horrific? What on Earth about that image says "Buy me!" for anyone who isn't already familiar with the film?

Poor Lukas Haas couldn’t stop witnessing murders in the 80s

Looking at that slipcover, I can’t stop seeing Sissy Spacek in Carrie if she was covered in flour rather than pig’s blood.

Wow, tough crowd here.

Feego wrote: Thu Jul 02, 2026 7:09 am Looking at that slipcover, I can’t stop seeing Sissy Spacek in Carrie if she was covered in flour rather than pig’s blood.

It looks exactly like Katherine Helmond in what is the best known still from the film and let me guess why it's rendered in white.

I don't know the movie, so all I see is a garishly looking actress motionless in a blank stare, on a non-descript black blackground, so the movie could very well be exactly the kind of 3.5 on IMDB movies VS are releasing on a weekly basis.

I first saw Lady in White at the London Film Festival in 1988, and have been a fan ever since. I think it's a real charmer, and one of the better horror films of the '80s. Although it received great reviews at the time, it was a box-office failure and has since acquired a cult following. Combining a ghost story, a murder mystery, an autobiographical coming-of-age narrative, a courtroom drama with nods to Harper Lee and a Spielbergian sense of wonder, all set in the early '60s around Halloween, it is occasionally unwieldy yet always engaging. It's a shame that Frank LaLoggia's career stalled after the film's financial failure, as he showed great promise. Despite its small budget, this period piece looks expensive, with only a couple of dodgy optical effects shots letting it down. In retrospect, it feels as though the director poured the ideas for about six different films into this one, just in case he never got the chance to make another. It is precisely this ambition and overabundance of ideas, however, that make the film so interesting and unique.

Although Katherine Helmond appeared in most of the publicity material, her role in the film is actually a misdirect and Lukas Haas gets to show why he was one of the great child actors of the era.