The Hunger [Blu-ray]

Tony Scott's first film. It was refreshing to revisit this classic that doesn't rely on manipulating color in post to achieve a "horror look." You can't tell how low budget this production was with the outstanding cinematography. The script doesn't hand you the plot, either. My Millennial wife was confused by what was going on due to the cross-cut editing style. I had to laugh. Film making has changed a lot since the golden age of 1980's cinema. See it.

Excellent customer service. My DVD didn’t work. I’ve tried several DVD players (mine and at friends) and PlayStation and it’s not readable. The packaging was not damaged and it was sealed as an original unopened dvd. They replaced it with no issues. Thanks!

Was a very good movie I rented on prime!

In watching The Hunger (1983) last night, it seemed completely foreign to me that this movie was directed by Tony Scott, the same guy who directed such films as Top Gun (1986), Beverly Hills Cop II (1987), Days of Thunder (1990), and The Last Boy Scout (1991)...why? Because this film seemed so...artsy fartsy, for lack of a better term, while those other films tend to fall into the category of manly man films. By the way, I just read Scott is in the process of remaking Walter Hill's 1979 film The Warriors, scheduled to be released sometime in 2006...is Hollywood so bereft of original ideas they have to cannibalize past works? This is strictly a rhetorical question, as we all know the answer, so please don't send me a ton of e-mails...anyway, the film, based on a novel by Whitley Strieber, directed by Tony Scott, stars the very European Catherine Deneuve (The Musketeer), the always androgynous David Bowie (Into the Night), and the ever liberal Susan Sarandon (The Rocky Horror Picture Show), who, according to the Internet Movie Database keeps her Oscar in the bathroom...huh...I use mine as a doorstop. Also appearing is Cliff De Young (F/X), Dan Hedaya (Alien: Resurrection), and Willem Dafoe in a seminal role credited as `2nd Phone Booth Youth' (seriously, his role is so minuscule you'll miss it if you blink...he does have at least one line, so he got paid more for than just his pretty face). Also watch for Ann Magnuson (Clear and Present Danger) near the beginning in a very revealing part.The film begins as we see an older, somewhat sophisticated couple (Bowie and Deneuve), whom we later come to know as John and Miriam Blaylock, picking up a younger couple at a disco...for what purpose? Certainly not to swing, baby...once alone, the older pair make short work of the younger pair in fine, vampiric style (sans the fangs), these scenes interlaced with those of spastic monkeys (you heard me). We then meet Sarah Roberts, author and researcher, her work involving something to do with unlocking the mysteries of how our biological clocks work, and, perhaps someday slowing down or even halting the aging process (good luck with all that). So far all she's got is the ability to cause monkeys to age really, really fast...keep up the good work. Anyway, John soon comes down with a serious case of geezer-itis, and contacts Sarah, as she's the aging expert and all. So what's his deal? I'm not going to tell you, but I will say don't get too attached to the character. Not long after this Miriam finds herself attracted to Sarah, and sees her as a possible candidate to fill the now vacant role of consort, allowing Sarah the opportunity to experience first hand the true nature of that which she wishes to know.Okay, first off, any film that can incorporate the song Bela Lugosi's Dead (by Bauhaus) is alright in my book. The first thing that comes to my mind when I think about this film is billowy drapes...every third scene or so is populated by long, diaphanous curtains blowing in the wind, inducing flashbacks to when MTV actually played rock music videos back in the 80's, as many featured just such a scene. And was there one character in the film that didn't smoke? I guess if you're blessed (or cursed, depending on your point of view) with eternal life, you don't worry too much about getting the big C. I thought the film did very well straddling the line between being pretty cool and being utterly pretentious, leaning towards the former as director Scott knows how to create interesting visuals featuring many up close and personal shots, providing an intimacy to the characters. I also thought the flashback sequences were handled pretty well, primarily used to flesh out the story a little, but not appearing blatant or obvious. The color tone seemed a bit muted throughout the film, giving an overall ethereal sense as if the story was taking place as a dream, one that you witness, but don't participate in...if that makes any sense. Have you ever wanted to see David Bowie as a really decrepit, shriveled, bony, veiny, desiccated, covered in liver spots, old man? Here's your chance...how about a topless Susan Sarandon enjoying the pleasures of the Sapphic kind? That's in here too...I did have one issue with the story and that was near the end. Perhaps it's better detailed in the novel, but it has to do with transference. If you've seen the film, you may have an idea of what I'm talking about, as it wasn't put forth in a manner that made a lot of sense. I did accept it, begrudgingly. I don't always require everything spelled out for me, but this seemed a fairly critical part of the story. I thought all the actors did well, despite some minor deficiencies within the story with regards to the characters (a couple of them seemed transparent to me). I did appreciate the slightly sympathetic element that grew from the story with regards to John and Miriam, their lives affected by what us `norms' would consider a monstrous and hideous affliction, especially given the actions necessary foe survival. I did like most of the music within the film, especially the sometimes moody orchestral pieces, but the electronic stuff (music and sound effects) seemed a little too heavy and distracting at times. Perhaps a more minimalist route would have been a better tact to take, but this, as many of the issue I brought up, are fairly minor compared to an overall enjoyable film.The widescreen anamorphic picture (2.35:1), enhanced for 16 X 9 TVs, on this DVD looks very clear and sharp, and the Dolby Digital 2.0 Mono is decent, albeit soft at times. There are a few extras including a commentary track featuring Sarandon and director Scott, a still gallery, and a theatrical trailer, which I would avoid watching prior to watching the film, that is if you haven't already seen the movie.Cookieman108

Watched the movie on my computer. Very clear no problems playing the CD. Good buy fast delivery.

Surprise endings. Women's breasts.

Arrived promptly in great condition

...because it was just utterly impossible to work up any empathy for the main characters. Although all 3 are raving liberals, I dig Bowie, especially his music, but he's a good actor, too - and as for the Ladies...well, I am a straight/testosterone-soaked/heterosexual man, and my interest in Ms. Deneuve & Ms. Sarandon are...well, "if you have to ask..." But NONE of the three main characters seem capable of giving a r@+$-@$$ about ANYthing - except maybe their own - temporary - desires. Bowie suddenly starts to grow old (as, I guess, would ANY 200+ year old man...oh yeah, right, he's a vampire), and Deneuve and Sarandon BOTH: "well, d'you think this fingernail polish is right?" Much is made of the lesbian love scene, and yeah...well, it's awfully nice to looks at, but is it THAT really necessary to/for the "plot?" (No, I haven't read the book, but it IS slightly above Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and Obama's "Dreams From My Father" on my "to be read/bucket list"). And c'mon - killing that kid when Bowie is jonesing REAL bad? (Reminds me slightly of what one of the MST3K robots said in "Manos The Hands Of Fate"). Still - maybe I'm displaying, if not admittedly FLAUNTING my age, but vampires back then, well, post the Lugosi ones anyway, didn't seem to worry about stepping out in the sunshine, and they didn't suddenly develop a yellowish-sparkly patina all about them.