Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know, right? I thought I would need therapy to get over that movie, it was horrifying.
That's interesting. I grew hearing about how horrific it was, so I guess I was mentally prepared for the more shocking moments. I also just happened to love anything scary since I was a kid (Scooby Doo, etc), and now I think it's the highest art form in some ways.
That's interesting. I grew hearing about how horrific it was, so I guess I was mentally prepared for the more shocking moments. I also just happened to love anything scary since I was a kid (Scooby Doo, etc), and now I think it's the highest art form in some ways.
Seeing a movie many years after its era, especially one that has some very specific reputation, is not the same as seeing it more or less in context of time without generalized spoilers.
No, it's not a super-jumpshock-gorefest terrifying film by the standards of, oh, even twenty years ago, not after so many super-jumpshock-gorefest films have competed to show the most yardage of guts pulled out by fiends or machinery. It is one of the most haunting, invasive, dread-shock films ever made. But if you were waiting for Freddy to gut someone, it might seem tame.
My... disappointment? with the film is how inextricably bound it was with Oldfield's "Tubular Bells," despite being reminded each time that I don't think there's a 30-second passage of that tune actually in the film.
Seeing a movie many years after its era, especially one that has some very specific reputation, is not the same as seeing it more or less in context of time without generalized spoilers.
No, it's not a super-jumpshock-gorefest terrifying film by the standards of, oh, even twenty years ago, not after so many super-jumpshock-gorefest films have competed to show the most yardage of guts pulled out by fiends or machinery. It is one of the most haunting, invasive, dread-shock films ever made. But if you were waiting for Freddy to gut someone, it might seem tame.
My... disappointment? with the film is how inextricably bound it was with Oldfield's "Tubular Bells," despite being reminded each time that I don't think there's a 30-second passage of that tune actually in the film.
I've always thought that music worked really well in the film.
So did you grump through Star Wars because light sabers can't possibly work?
Or walk out of Citizen Kane because no one was there to hear him say "Rosebud"?
I don't think you have to buy into a story's elements as fact (e.g. possession, Satan, exorcism) to appreciate one of the most powerful and subtle horror movies ever made.
I saw "Star Wars" in the theater when it was first released. It was OK. Saw "The Empire Strikes Back" on HBO. Also OK, but not interesting enough to make me see any of the subsequent releases in the series.
Haven't seen "Citizen Kane". Probably won't. Story just doesn't sound particularly interesting to me.
I'm glad you liked both of them and certainly don't fault you for it. I just don't share the feeling.
My... disappointment? with the film is how inextricably bound it was with Oldfield's "Tubular Bells," despite being reminded each time that I don't think there's a 30-second passage of that tune actually in the film.
Seeing a movie many years after its era, especially one that has some very specific reputation, is not the same as seeing it more or less in context of time without generalized spoilers.
No, it's not a super-jumpshock-gorefest terrifying film by the standards of, oh, even twenty years ago, not after so many super-jumpshock-gorefest films have competed to show the most yardage of guts pulled out by fiends or machinery. It is one of the most haunting, invasive, dread-shock films ever made. But if you were waiting for Freddy to gut someone, it might seem tame.
My... disappointment? with the film is how inextricably bound it was with Oldfield's "Tubular Bells," despite being reminded each time that I don't think there's a 30-second passage of that tune actually in the film.
I like Friedkin's movie quite a lot actually. But the biggest reason I wouldn't be inherently opposed to a film remake:
The novel is certainly scary, and the film captured that. But the novel also has some sections of deep and profound beauty. Some of that they tried to put into the Director's Cut, which was an improvement, but it still failed to really capture those beatific moments from the book. So if another filmmaker thinks he or she can do better? Let 'em try.
That said, I cannot think of another actor who could be equal to Max von Sydow. The man wasn't just an actor. He was a Presence. Even when he was in bad movies (and he was in a surprising amount), he was fantastic in them.
I saw "Star Wars" in the theater when it was first released. It was OK. Saw "The Empire Strikes Back" on HBO. Also OK, but not interesting enough to make me see any of the subsequent releases in the series.
Haven't seen "Citizen Kane". Probably won't. Story just doesn't sound particularly interesting to me.
I'm glad you liked both of them and certainly don't fault you for it. I just don't share the feeling.
Okay, this says a lot.
If you only watch movies at a fairly casual and superficial level, then it's hard to find much to appreciate beside car chases and bare breasts. I can see how a movie of the mind like Exorcist might leave you cold.
My points had nothing to do with whether I liked the movies or not... but how you/any viewer chooses to interpret them.
Not sure what you mean. It's a fabulous piece of... pre techno from the great era of "Hey, look what I can do with my synthesizer, Mr. Moog!"
My point was that the tune and the movie are almost synonymous, or were at the time, but the film only uses the briefest passage - possibly less than Joker used of "Rock & Roll Part 2" - another pairing that is probably universal among both those who saw the movie and those who only saw a few trailers.
If you only watch movies at a fairly casual and superficial level, then it's hard to find much to appreciate beside car chases and bare breasts. I can see how a movie of the mind like Exorcist might leave you cold.
My points had nothing to do with whether I liked the movies or not... but how you/any viewer chooses to interpret them.
Oh, so because I wasn't scared by "The Exorcist" my taste in movies isn't sophisticated enough for you? I have no problem with admitting that I liked the car chase scene in "Bullitt" and enjoyed Suzanne Somers' brief topless scene in "Magnum Force", just like I have no problem stating that I didn't find "The Exorcist" the least bit scary, unlike the original "Night of the Living Dead", which STILL creeps me out. Has nothing to do with "The Exorcist" being "of the mind". While chases, breasts, and "blowed up real good" can certainly be fun and entertaining, they aren't requisites for a movie to be enjoyable. It just needs to be enjoyable, which I did not find "The Exorcist" to be.
I'm convinced that these remakes come out every once in a while because people want to use new special effects.
... which is always funny to me because of the stories like that of Jaws, which was scarier because the special effects didn't work the way Spielberg intended, and he had to show the mechanical shark less, which added suspense and tension and made things MORE ... uncertain and spooky.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
