MovieChat Forums > John Dies at the End (2012) Discussion > Don Coscarelli should have never been gi...

Don Coscarelli should have never been given this film to make


I realize that Wong really likes Coscarelli and he's made some films that have somewhat cult followings but this film is a complete failure and should have never been given to Coscarelli to make. There, I said it.

I saw Phantasm (i could only make it through the first one). It sucks. I saw Bubba Ho-tep, watchable, slightly funny - it was ok. JDATE was an excellent novel. Coscarelli butchered it. The book has vivid detail that make it ideal for converting to the big screen. It was entirely possible to interpret it in a way that still held together the story from the book. The final product fails at this miserably while STILL providing subpar CGI that makes it feel like it was made in the 80's.

The strange thing is, I think Wong is completely aware of this, perhaps in denial or perhaps realizing that the damage is already done and there is nothing he can do but try to sell this POS to us, backpedaling quite a bit in interviews and on his JDATE facebook feed "Oh, I realize now that there is no way we could include every character without making this film 5 hours long". Could they have at least given us a proper introduction to Amy? She's integral to the book as well as the sequel. She comes off as unimportant in the film. How about explain why he's digging in the beginning of the film? It's really effin' important in the book. Someone who is actually good at converting a book to film would have been more appropriate. Someone who can bring to life an alternate universe on film would have been more appropriate. I'm not saying you need James Cameron, Steven Soderberg or ILM. There are a ton of young, hungry, talented filmmakers out there that could have made this happen and probably on the same budget.

I'm so annoyed. Not just because it was disappointing. But because I can't un-watch this film. It makes reading Spiders really difficult. Hopefully when the third book comes out, I will have long forgotten the JDATE: The movie.

reply

[deleted]

never said he was assigned this film. But the rights for him to turn it into a film had to be given to him.

reply

the JDATE novel was originally a story updated piece by piece on pointless waste of time. wong wrote it on the fly. the movie did well to adapt/condense certain parts of the book

reply

I think Coscarelli's previous works completely blow this POS out of the water. Phantasm is a bona-fide cult/horror classic, despite what the uninformed OP says. My guess is that he tried to polish a turd of a book and this was the best result that could of it; when you're given crap to work with, crap is the output you'll get.


Nons have ISSUES - the WM3 are INNOCENT.

reply

Movie was better

reply

Which is why he bought the rights....

reply

All I read was the typical "blah blah blah the book was better."

The movie isn't perfect, but it's an easy way to kill and hour and a half. I enjoyed it without prejudice.

reply

Is that really a point to be made? Masturbating is an easy way to kill an hour and half...and far more pleasurable.

reply

If it takes you an hour and a half to do that, then you are doing something wrong.

reply

If it takes you an hour and a half to do that, then you are doing something wrong.
I wholeheartedly disagree!! :)

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

Hmmm... I never looked at masturbation as a stamina/endurance test.



Anyone here mentions Hotel California dies before the first line clears his lips.

reply

Just like fine wine, it's best savored slowly :oP

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

I don't know what happened, the movie definitely failed on many fronts. I mean as a short short goofy film, it does that okay but if it had included a bit more of the book it would have blown so much out of the water and been an instant cult-classic, instead it's a mostly forgettable goofy film you have no interest in seeing more than once. I'll have to show it to friends who haven't read the book, see if they enjoy it... also if they can understand it because the story seems like a mess on fastforward once they make it to the mall.

I've met Don Coscarelli before and I do enjoy many of his movies so... I'm not sold on him being a terrible director choice for this movie. I think they probably thought to cut out time and expense by trimming out a lot of stuff from the book and keep the core confrontation with Korrok but unfortunately that cuts out a lot of great scenes, not to mention a lot of story and character development. The monologue at the beginning with the axe is simply a throwaway joke in the movie, there actually is a much deeper meaning to it in the book.
At the very least they should have left in the scene at Vegas, it would have allowed Marconi to come across as more of a badass and a lot of action, it would have explained the wig monsters, it would have allowed *beep* to crotch-punch a lot more people (seriously funny part of the book), etc. Maybe they could have done that page-skip by teleporting to Korrok from there, at the very least there'd be a little bit more going on this movie and I wouldn't feel ripped-off... I mean heck, all the fun and weird weapons they used in the book are just glossed over, that's usually a signature of Coscarelli films!

reply

This was not a "short short" film; it is very average in length. I will NOT be forgetting it. I did not know there was a book, now I have to read that. I thought this was one of the funniest goofy films I have ever seen. Spoiler alert? I presume the "axe joke" was about the reanimated victim searching for the weapon that killed him, and the components of the axe were completely different from that weapon.

reply

Actually the axe joke had more to do with the main character than anything else... hopefully you get a chance to read the book at some point, very enjoyable read.

I've recently picked up the sequel and hope to start it soon.


To me the film felt rushed and glossed over a lot that would have helped explain and deepen a lot of what was happening, not to mention they skipped over some really great comedic moments.

reply

Don't read this unless you read the book or don't plan on reading the book.



The axe 'joke' that is mentioned in the beginning of both the movie and the book asks a question - if an axe kills someone and later on both the blade and handle of the axe are replaced separately, is it still the same axe that killed that person?

This is in reference to late in the book how you realize the main character is actually a copy, with the original having been killed off at some previous point in the story. He has all the memories of said character... is he the same person?

They introduced the joke in the movie but left it as a standalone quote, with none of the depth you find out about it later on in the book. And I'd say that characterizes this movie, it takes some of the surface from the book but leaves out quite a bit which would have explained, deepened, and made a lot funnier what happened. I bought a copy of this movie on dvd based on how fantastic and complete the trailer makes it look... needless to say I was disappointed.

reply

Yeah, they did that a lot in this film. Like when they set up the joke from the book about the cliched "I never guessed John would cause the end of the world" line, but they never give the punchline about all the crazy stuff John does.

reply

You're an idiot and you are a troll. Coscarelli did a great job blending a decent book with his unique creativity. And Phantasm is one of the greatest films of all time! Grow up

reply

[deleted]

oh, and don't forget award winning CGI...

reply

as a 10 year member of imdb, I must take trolling very seriously. In fact, I joined 10 years ago, just so I could troll a film that hadn't even been thought of in 2003.

reply

I somewhat like this film but it did fail. I feel they should have just made the first part of the story and if there was interest to continue with the other two. not start with the first story and end it with the last story. I do enjoy the movie but I definitely could have enjoyed it more.

Remember, the more you talk about Jesus, the less you have to be like him.

reply

I agree this film was horrendous. I just finished the novel the other day, and watched the movie just now on Netflix. Now I know film adaptations of novels can never fully translate the book to film, but this was just, ugh, a *beep* piece of s**t. I could hardly sit through it and it felt so convoluted and rushed. There was no character development and I felt clueless while watching it (I can't imagine how it was for someone who hadn't even read the novel!). I can't believe it has such a high rating. It should be at like a 3.5, tops. Now the book is no masterpiece but it was definitely entertaining. The film though, is God awful. And the *beep* part about it is that the trailer made the film look like it was going to be awesome. I was sorely let down. Don has gutted the book and made this monstrosity of a film. He's taken out so many crucial plot points and twists that the film has no substance and everything is lacking context. It's like he got too lazy writing the screenplay and just s**t all over it instead. Anyone who says this film was good is clearly delusional and has s**t for brains. I've heard good things about Bubba Ho-tep, but after watching this film, I'm scared to even give that a try.

reply

I stopped reading at you saying Phantasm sucked, your opinions are now worthless to me

reply

this comment is as boring as phantasm.

reply

As a huge horror fan I have to say I don't understand how Coscarelli still gets work. Especially good, wacky material like this. He's done nothing to show he can handle it.

I agree that Phantasm and Bubba Ho-Tep are HIS better works, but for the really renowned horror directors like Romero or Raimi they would easily be among their worst (which is saying something).

reply

Don should have said no. No director on earth could make a good movie out of such an awful, unoriginal plot.

reply