Dark Force Entertainment Discussion Thread

[defile959]

Originally Posted by Dark Force

Yeah it's gonna shoot up in value. Cause now the run got cut way short. The slip looks amazing even with the tiny little flaw and the transfer is the best ever available on home video of the uncut X-rated version of the movie which also happens to be great. And the trailers on there...does anybody really care?

I feel like the slip is more of a bummer for Dark Force than anyone else. My eBay comment was just some snark for long-time thread readers, but sarcasm doesn't always read online because I don't have the right font installed. </sarcasm>

The trailers aren't a deal breaker, but I do always enjoy watching them to get an idea of what's coming next or of other releases that I haven't checked out yet. I'd never seen something like that pop up on a commercial release.

But yeah, the movie is the main selling point, and I always appreciate seeing something I've never seen before.

[omenboy]

Originally Posted by Cinema84

If the air bubble bursts, are the chemicals that make it glow going to spill out? I plan to reseal mine with super glue and paint over the area yellow as best I can to minimize the "damage". I hope Magdalena won't mind.

I'm guessing you guys changed manufacturers - none of the other glow slips had this issue. Don't fix what ain't broke

The Devil made them do it.

[Zarak]

My copy arrived today and has thick patches of glow coat at the bottom like everyone else's. I can't tell if they're air pockets or just thicker areas of coating, like when paint drips. I'm not going to touch it—I immediately put it in a protective sleeve. It's a cool looking slipcover, in any case. I'm looking forward to watching this one.

[kem71]

Originally Posted by defile959

My slipcover isn't too tight, but it's definitely got issues with the glow layer, both around the bottom edge but also along the curve of the face. Bubbles or air pockets, like others have mentioned.

Yep, got mine today and I have the same exact issue. Not the end of the world, sure, but I am glad Dark Force is offering a replacement slipcover program for nerdy people(like me) that do want a pristine slipcover.

[WillieMLF]

Originally Posted by gbm82

This is who they hired after the spectacular Carrier disk.

I open the mailbox today , to my surprise Magdalena is in the box. What tiny imperfection am I looking for? Will I need an electron microscope to see it? I’m assuming those who reported it are in the hospital from the multiple heart attacks.

[emmet otter]

Is there anywhere else I can purchase Magdalena other than Dark Force? I would rather have the 'falling apart' glow in the dark slip

[Nosferatu31]

Originally Posted by Zarak

My copy arrived today and has thick patches of glow coat at the bottom like everyone else's. I can't tell if they're air pockets or just thicker areas of coating, like when paint drips. I'm not going to touch it—I immediately put it in a protective sleeve. It's a cool looking slipcover, in any case. I'm looking forward to watching this one.

They are definitely air pockets. I originally thought it was an overflow of the coating until nymets138 brought it to my attention.

[Zarak]

Originally Posted by Dark Force

Unfortunately we were unable to get the German audio on MAGDALENA but we were extremely fortunate to get the the original US INTERNEG in pristine condition that originally had all the hardcore nudity scenes removed for the R-Rated US re-issue. However, the scenes were put back in thankfully so we have the official uncut technically RATED X version. Having seen it I can say unequivocally the movie is awesome.

I watched Magdalena this evening, and I'm not at all bothered by the flaws in the glow-in-the-dark slipcover, but I am bothered by Demon Dave pitching this as an X-rated version. I, like probably at least a few other people, ordered this because I thought it was going to be an X-rated horror film like Malabimba, but it's not. It has no explicit scenes, no inserts, nothing other than run-of-the-mill nudity.

WTF, Dark Force? Why y'all gotta lie all the time to sell your sh!t? It's stupid and obnoxious.

Apart from the deception, it was an okay Excorcist ripoff. If anyone wants to see an actual X-rated Exorcist ripoff, I refer you to Joanna Angel's The XXXorcist, which is excellent.

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by Zarak

I watched Magdalena this evening, and I'm not at all bothered by the flaws in the glow-in-the-dark slipcover, but I am bothered by Demon Dave pitching this as an X-rated version. I, like probably at least a few other people, ordered this because I thought it was going to be an X-rated horror film like Malabimba, but it's not. It has no explicit scenes, no inserts, nothing other than run-of-the-mill nudity.

WTF, Dark Force? Why y'all gotta lie all the time to sell your sh!t? It's stupid and obnoxious.

Apart from the deception, it was an okay Excorcist ripoff. If anyone wants to see an actual X-rated Exorcist ripoff, I refer you to Joanna Angel's The XXXorcist, which is excellent.

I did not get this yet, so I haven't seen this version. Are you saying there is no penetration shots in the movie? Magdalena was never supposed to be anything more than a sleazy horror movie as opposed to a porno. Sometimes the filmmakers would add a few short penetration shots in the 70s so the films could be shown in adult theaters as well.

[TripleHBK]

Originally Posted by Zarak

My copy arrived today and has thick patches of glow coat at the bottom like everyone else's. I can't tell if they're air pockets or just thicker areas of coating, like when paint drips. I'm not going to touch it—I immediately put it in a protective sleeve. It's a cool looking slipcover, in any case. I'm looking forward to watching this one.

I touched mine plenty and from what I can tell (on my slip at least) it's just a thicker than normal blob of Glow paint. It feels solid overall and not something I would expect to come off without some force being applied.

Be sure to report back when you've watched the film. This is one of those films that since watching it I've thought about it more and more... not because it's a good movie, but more so because of the lunacy of various aspects of it... the least of which are the multiple gyrating scenes from the gorgeous Dagmar Hedrich which are truly something to behold.

EDIT: I apparently missed your follow up post saying you watched this already. My mistake!

[JasonMichael]

Originally Posted by Zarak

I watched Magdalena this evening, and I'm not at all bothered by the flaws in the glow-in-the-dark slipcover, but I am bothered by Demon Dave pitching this as an X-rated version. I, like probably at least a few other people, ordered this because I thought it was going to be an X-rated horror film like Malabimba, but it's not. It has no explicit scenes, no inserts, nothing other than run-of-the-mill nudity.

WTF, Dark Force? Why y'all gotta lie all the time to sell your sh!t? It's stupid and obnoxious.

Apart from the deception, it was an okay Excorcist ripoff. If anyone wants to see an actual X-rated Exorcist ripoff, I refer you to Joanna Angel's The XXXorcist, which is excellent.

I almost fell for this and ordered it, but I did enough due diligence to realize that Dark Force's hype was veering into truthiness.

I also vote for Joanna Angel's XXXorcist. Lots of fun.

[vortexx]

I'm guessing there may have been some communication between Dark Force and with whoever came up with the print as DarkForce does say hardcore in the quote above. I assumed all versions of Magdalena would have been X rated in the theater due to lots of nudity. It was released this way on VHS in the early 80s in Canada by CIC video. That was the print most of the rare video guys wanted. It was released as the Devil's Female. Now I guess it could be quite possible to cut it to get an R Rating, but I've never seen that version. Certain theaters would not play x films or unrated films at the time, so it could be an R theatrical print that was used with extra nudity added from international prints. Like I said, I didn't get this yet, so I don't know what is on there. X rated can mean lots of nudity or hard core porn. There was never an official XXX rating. I recall seeing some ads for XXXX films which were supposed to make the viewer think it was even more explicit. Generally hardcore means some sort of penetration even if only a finger.

[Keyser Soze.]

Originally Posted by Zarak

I watched Magdalena this evening, and I'm not at all bothered by the flaws in the glow-in-the-dark slipcover, but I am bothered by Demon Dave pitching this as an X-rated version. I, like probably at least a few other people, ordered this because I thought it was going to be an X-rated horror film like Malabimba, but it's not. It has no explicit scenes, no inserts, nothing other than run-of-the-mill nudity.

WTF, Dark Force? Why y'all gotta lie all the time to sell your sh!t? It's stupid and obnoxious.

Apart from the deception, it was an okay Excorcist ripoff. If anyone wants to see an actual X-rated Exorcist ripoff, I refer you to Joanna Angel's The XXXorcist, which is excellent.

Sounds meh. If you want to flip it and get back some of the funds shoot me a pm. I might be interested in buying a used copy of this just to check the movie out (low expectations).

[indravayu]

I was glad that it didn't have porno inserts, TBH. Not that I'm a prude, but just that I find it annoying to have stuff that was often shot by other directors, and normally using other actors, randomly inserted into a film and messing up the flow.

[kvnbhovis]

Originally Posted by indravayu

I was glad that it didn't have porno inserts, TBH. Not that I'm a prude, but just that I find it annoying to have stuff that was often shot by other directors, and normally using other actors, randomly inserted into a film and messing up the flow.

I know what you mean. The first time I saw 99 Women, it was with porno inserts that clearly weren't shot by Jess Franco or any of the actors in the film. Really detracted from the movie.

[Jobla]

Not to mention SEXY JEANS, the porno-inserted ripoff version of MASSACRE AT CENTRAL HIGH.

[Zarak]

Originally Posted by indravayu

I was glad that it didn't have porno inserts, TBH. Not that I'm a prude, but just that I find it annoying to have stuff that was often shot by other directors, and normally using other actors, randomly inserted into a film and messing up the flow.

I totally understand that, and I agree with you that there's nothing artful in inserts or anything about them that relates to the original intent of the film. They're usually cheesy and ill fitting within the context of the movie.

Having said that, I specifically collect vintage X-rated films on Blu-ray just because it's an area of film that really fascinates me. I'll buy literally any hardcore film from the '70s and '80s that gets released on Blu-ray, even if the hardcore scenes are inserts. There aren't that many of them, period, so it's not an extremely demanding hobby to pursue. But anyway, I was led to believe that I was getting an X-rated film here, and it's absolutely not.

Originally Posted by vortexx

I did not get this yet, so I haven't seen this version. Are you saying there is no penetration shots in the movie? Malabimba was never supposed to be anything more than a sleazy horror movie as opposed to a porno.

There's nothing close to a penetration shot in the movie. It has only nudity.

John Lyon/Joe Rubin said that the negative of Malabimba had the hardcore material, so he says that the original intent of the film was for it to be hardcore, which is how Vinegar Syndrome released it.

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by Zarak

I totally understand that, and I agree with you that there's nothing artful in inserts or anything about them that relates to the original intent of the film. They're usually cheesy and ill fitting within the context of the movie.

Having said that, I specifically collect vintage X-rated films on Blu-ray just because it's an area of film that really fascinates me. I'll buy literally any hardcore film from the '70s and '80s that gets released on Blu-ray, even if the hardcore scenes are inserts. There aren't that many of them, period, so it's not an extremely demanding hobby to pursue. But anyway, I was led to believe that I was getting an X-rated film here, and it's absolutely not.



There's nothing close to a penetration shot in the movie. It has only nudity.

John Lyon/Joe Rubin said that the negative of Malabimba had the hardcore material, so he says that the original intent of the film was for it to be hardcore, which is how Vinegar Syndrome released it.

I Got malabimba and Magdalena mixed up in the thing you quoted.

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by kvnbhovis

I know what you mean. The first time I saw 99 Women, it was with porno inserts that clearly weren't shot by Jess Franco or any of the actors in the film. Really detracted from the movie.

The first time I saw 99 Women was a TV version which was pretty bad.

[zbinks]

The synopsis on the back cover mentions "the uncut US X-rated version" but the details at the bottom also feature an MPAA "R" logo. MPAA's website confirms that the film was certified with an "R" rating, but doesn't provide any other information regarding anything that needed to be cut from the film to achieve that rating, just that the film had an alternate title.

TITLE: Beyond The Darkness (1976)
RATING: R
CERTIFICATE #: 1430
REASON:

DISTRIBUTOR: Mid Broadway Productions
ALTERNATE TITLES: Magdalena
OTHER:

https://www.filmratings.com/Search?f...lena&x=19&y=12

Allegedly, there is a 120 minute cut of the film that was released in West Germany and Austria, but is there any evidence that multiple cuts (aside from the possibility of alternate title cards) were created for the US?