Spontaneous Combustion

Spontaneous Combustion-1080P

Spontaneous Combustion-720P

Spontaneous Combustion-480P

Spontaneous Combustion-360P

source: Spontaneous Combustion

God i love those transparent, glowing phones and radios that chick has. Anyway, not as bad as many people say it is. I'm actually a fan of Tobe Hooper's later work (well, some of it). I think people expect far too much of him based on the cultural impact of TCM and its just not fair. Tobe Hooper's films have always been rather fun and campy, while simultaneously making (sometimes rather heavy handed) sociocultural critiques. As others have noted, Spontaneous Combustion has underlying themes relating to the way that the 50's atomic bomb influenced and informed the culture of the 80's. A lot of biting references to the 'nuclear family' and its place in society as well as how both the presence and absence can affect us as we grow up and become adults. I honestly have no idea why most people say this started his downward slide cause its actually pretty good- a lot better than his remake of Invaders, that's for sure.

decent flick is stylishly directed with cool effects and a watchable story this turns out to be a decent little film here the acting is solid Brad Douriff gives a good performance here and is very amiable not much gore here but lots of fire and flames if your into that the dialog is bad at times but the plot is good and interesting but the ending was kinda rushed and shaky but overall i enjoyed it i mean it's not something you would buy but a rent go for it it's got Brad Douriff and he is always nutty nutty but good and Tobe Hooper did a decent job with some stylish pieces here but as i said i hated the ending so overall this is worth a look **1/2 out of 5

Nevada desert, 1955. Peggy and Brian Bell, are being experimented on by the US Army to test the effects of exposure to atomic energy whilst testing a nuclear bomb. The test seems to go well, and the Bells are located in a picturesque suburbia. However, after giving birth to their son, the couple suddenly spontaneously combusted, a clear effect of the nuclear fallout. The baby boy survives them, and grows up to be Sam (Brad Dourif). So we flash forward to the present day, where Sam's freakish ability to combust becomes increasingly dangerous to both himself and others around him. In one scene (with a cameo from John Landis), Sam has called into a radio psychic DJ - who has now gone off the air - and gets through to the Landis' radio technician who refuses to pass him onto the DJ (Dr Persons - played by Joe Mays). This increases Sam's anger (which as we have seen previously, makes Sam burnier), and he projects fire through the phone (in a pseudo-telekinetic flash), which results in fire streaming from the knee-caps of poor Landis. Sam's main goal is to find out about his parents and to determine why these phenomena keep occurring. Tobe Hooper has not had it easy since the release of exceptionally brilliant debut The Texas Chain-Saw Massacre (1974). All of his subsequent films have either fallen foul of studio intervention (Death Trap (1977), The Funhouse (1981)), executive producer Steven Spielberg's ultimate overbearing on-set presence (Poltergeist (1982), or just poorly conceived ideas (Lifeforce (1985), Invaders from Mars (1986) and Texas Chain-Saw Massacre 2 (1986). He seems only in the latter part of the '80's produce Stephen King-like projects, either directly adapting a King novel (Salem's Lot (1979 -TV mini-series), or lifting pseudo-King story devices, much like Spontaneous Combustion. The use of fire as a telekinetic ability had been previously 'explored' in Kings Firestarter. This is not a great film. The production values are akin to the TV movies/series' that were being broadcast at the time. this was seen throughout the genre in the early years of the decade. This period is almost a vacuum of popular visual culture, with the exception of one horror, the TV series Twin Peaks (1990-1991). The camera movements and compositions are standard television production. Aside from the lack of visual flare, there is one element that never really fails to please. That is of course Brad Dourif. I find everything that Dourif is in to be thoroughly fun to watch. Even, as in this performance, when he is wildly over-the-top. His eyes intense, and his vociferousness projected directly into you brain, sharp and direct. No one does sweaty anger like Dourif does. So, in conclusion. S**t film, but it is totally be forgiven cause Brad Dourif is in it. www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

It's not so much that SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION had little potential. Indeed the under-explored title phenomenon is quite intriguing and, for at least the opening half, this Tobe Hooper effort promises to entertain in a way only cheesy '90s horror can. But somewhere between Brad Dourif's on-again-off-again performance and the overly intricate plot, this would-be thriller loses its way. Dourif, featured here before his built-in horror fan base had accumulated, is average guy Sam. Of course average guys don't stay average for long in horror movies, so after a well-done origin outline, we see Sam's various body parts start to ignite. Soon he's igniting other people, too, much to the consternation of gal pal Lisa, played unmemorably by Cynthia Bain. While the title of the film implies a fire-happy monster on the loose, director Hooper opted to make Sam an unwilling killer. This approach gives the film an added human depth it would otherwise lack, but it also prevents us from truly fearing the human flamethrower. We're left wondering whether this would have worked better as a straight-up villain-versus-everyone effort ala NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION is a pretty nominal effort when all is said and done. It will carry added appeal for Dourif's fans and those who can't get enough 1990s horror, be it good, bad or in between, but only on a slow night.

Others have already commented on the "decline" of director Tobe Hooper, but what about Brad Dourif? He was perfectly capable of selecting good projects (as he proved by starring in the same year's "Exorcist III"), so why did he agree to appear in this? Sure, he gives a suitably demented performance, and the film is not outright bad; it's just uninvolving, uninteresting and unappealing. That's three "un-"s too many. (*1/2)