MovieChat Forums > Squirm (1976) Discussion > Cover Art

Cover Art

posted 18 years ago by hairyhand
2 replies | jump to latest

Yes, the plot is silly, the acting is bad, and film is overall cheesy...but I still loved it! Something about this B-horror movie that works for me. Its a combination of all the elements involved...the creepy soundtrack, the wooded/swampy location, the characters, and of course, the critters. Although in some scenes they look like rubber spaghetti, I prefer good old 'hands on' special effects over computer graffics anytime.
My only complaint about it's release on dvd is the cover art. The original movie poster, a nightmarish cartoon collage of trees, victims, a skull with worms around it, was designed by artist Drew Struzan and was every bit as effective in its advertising as any other. Even the title text was unique and memorable.
I remembered seeing the film in the theaters when it was released back in the late 70's and being creeped out by the poster! The dvd cover has Roger submerged up to his chin in worms. Even the title text is different. A mistake on whoever thought of distributing it this way if you ask me. Too direct. Too simple. Too discusting. Other than Squirm 'fans' I can't see any new comer in being interested in seeing (much less buying) this film based on it's photo cover. Too bad. I feel they'll be missing a small gem of a monster fim frm the 70's. As good as 'The Blob' from the 50's or 'Night of the Living Dead' from the 60's.

[–] nsavage3-1 18 years ago

I completely agree with you on all levels.

This movie was soooo much more watchable than most of the other "bug" movies from the 70's. Everything just seemed to work. And in spite of the small-town characters, they were still interesting characters, some even likable. And the score is actually my favorite from ALL movies of this genre.

The original poster/artwork was one of the best too. Even today, if you put that poster in front of a theater, people would stop and stare at it.

I don't know why so many distributors choose not to use original artwork. Another example was the VHS release of "Fright Night". As you may recall, the original poster for the movie was an incredibly eerie painting of a house, with vampire-ish faces coming out of it. But the VHS box showed only a photograph of the character "Evil", after he had been turned into a vampire. Not only was this an inferior box-cover, but also was a huge spoiler for people who had not seen the movie.

I wonder if it is a copywright issue?

[–] hairyhand 18 years ago

I'm glad to see I'm not alone with this. And...I do remember the art cover for 'Fright Night'. I don't remember the new VHS cover though. Pity. I think they should keep the entire film intact...including original advertising, posters, and cover art. Think of all movie posters that were drawn or illustrated; like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'The Fly', 'Goonies', 'Jaws', etc. They wouldn't be the same if suddenly they were distributed with a cheap photo scene for their dvd covers.

You are probably right...it may very well be a 'copyright' issue.