Faces Of Death Shows Its Face In Theaters This April

[Peter Paltridge]

Canonical URL

https://popgeeks.com/faces-of-death-shows-its-face-in-theaters-this-april/

If you don’t know what Faces of Death is — and hey, despite how old I am, I didn’t even know until recently — it’s a time capsule of the early video rental market, the kind of thing that could only happen in a young industry dominated by mom and pop VHS shops that could be stocking anything in the shadows (or behind a beaded curtain in some cases). It was the ultimate forbidden fruit, a salacious clamshell with an ominous logo and a grinning skull, but little else besides the rumors about it: was it really possible to rent a snuff film? No, not really. That kind of product would have been illegal. Faces Of Death originally opened in theaters in 1978, an alleged compilation of found footage depicting war violence, gruesome accidents, and animal attacks. Like the gimmicky William Castle flicks of the early 60s, it rode entirely on shock to sell tickets, and claimed everything its audience saw was real. It was not, and though this kind of scheme was passe in cinemas by the late 70s, it found new life on home video. Countless teenagers across America sneaked into rental stores to pluck this naughty thing, […]
Read original article here:

Faces Of Death Shows Its Face In Theaters This April | PopGeeks.com Forum | Indie Games, Movies, TV, Tabletop & Comics

popgeeks.com

 

[Mr.Bridges]

I remembered the original Faces of Death, and from what I remember, it's the first movie that shows actual death of a person, and it ends up in lawsuits because of it. It's really scary that, you know, back then, snuff films are a scary urban legend, but now it's real. And video moderators on YouTube and Facebook and TikTok have to deal with those videos every day to the detriment of their mental health.

 

[Drake]

This is the dumbest revival I've seen in years. Faces of Death was trash even in the 80s—fake deaths, bad narration, pure garbage for edgy kids. Now they're slapping big names like Charli XCX and Barbie Ferreira on it thinking that'll make people care? Legendary must be desperate. I'll pass. The original was a curiosity at best, this sounds like another cash grab nobody asked for.

 

[50hellsofPain]

I never saw the original and honestly never wanted to. The whole appeal sounds like people daring each other to watch something gross. That kind of thing does not age well for me. What surprises me is that they think people need star names to sell it now. If anything, the original worked because it felt anonymous and shady. Seeing famous faces kind of breaks that feeling right away. I am not against remakes, but I question who this is really for. Older viewers already know the trick. Younger viewers already know everything is staged. Maybe the goal is just curiosity. I might watch it once out of interest, but I doubt it will leave much impact. Shock without mystery feels empty to me. I am more interested in reactions than the movie itself.

 

[Seb]

Honestly excited about this. Daniel Goldhaber did Cam and How to Blow Up a Pipeline, so he knows how to handle uncomfortable stuff without it feeling cheap. Charli XCX acting in a horror movie? That's wild casting but I trust her to bring something interesting. The teaser being hidden and age-restricted is smart marketing too. April 10 can't come soon enough—hope they lean into the found footage roots but make it actually scary this time.

 

[Bulma]

Lmao they really dug up Faces of Death in 2026. My dad used to talk about how everyone pretended they watched it but half the people were lying. Now it's getting a theater release with Stranger Things guy and Euphoria girl. Feels like a fever dream. Probably gonna be mid but I'll watch it anyway because why not. Nostalgia hits different when you're old enough to rent it legally now.

 

[kermitfries]

I see this more as a branding experiment than a horror movie. The name carries shock value even if people do not know the details. Slapping it on a modern film feels like testing how much memory still matters. I am not offended by the idea, but I am not excited either. Faces of Death was never about story or characters, so building a feature around it sounds difficult. The director choice is the most interesting part to me because his past work understands discomfort without being stupid. If he uses the title to explore why people want to watch violence, then it could be worth the time. If it is just loud and graphic, I will skip it. I do not need nostalgia for things I never liked.

 

[hothead757]

I don't get the hype at all. The original was mostly staged animal killings and car crashes with fake blood. It wasn't clever, just gross. Bringing it back as a narrative film with pop stars sounds like they're trying to make it respectable or something. It was never supposed to be respectable. This is just Hollywood ruining another weird piece of history. Skip it and rewatch the old one if you're curious.

 

[Shuri]

For me, the original Faces of Death always felt more sad than scary. It was people passing around something to prove they could handle it. I never liked that energy. So when I hear about a new version, I hope it does not celebrate that mindset. If it is honest about how fake footage and hype can mess with people, then it has value. The fact that it is coming to theaters instead of being dumped online makes me think they want it taken seriously. I am unsure if the title allows that. Many people will walk in with jokes already loaded. Still, I respect trying something risky instead of another safe sequel. I will wait for early reactions before deciding.