Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Sept 10, 2020 7:18:14 GMT
One of the last two films Christopher Reeve filmed before becoming paralyzed. 5.5/10
Kirstie Alley was totally miscast in this. George Sanders was better as the doctor in the 1960 version.
The film is too bright. It's not as scary as it could be because so much of it takes place in really bright daylight. This is one case where the black and white of the original version helped the storytelling.
I liked the ending in this better than the 1960 version, though.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Sept 11, 2020 11:33:43 GMT
5/10
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Sept 11, 2020 21:01:14 GMT
7/10 I liked it--it's kind of dumb and hysterical (like the woman leading the lynch mob) but I can watch it now and then. The David character was sympathetic-although the little blonde girl's acting was often too bossy bitch sounding.
The scene where Reeve's wife sticks her hand in the boiling pot is extremely disturbing. Especially as she gets pulled out and puts it back in!
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Sept 12, 2020 1:00:24 GMT
7/10 I liked it--it's kind of dumb and hysterical (like the woman leading the lynch mob) but I can watch it now and then. The David character was sympathetic-although the little blonde girl's acting was often too bossy bitch sounding. The scene where Reeve's wife sticks her hand in the boiling pot is extremely disturbing. Especially as she gets pulled out and puts it back in! I agree, the little boy, David, was very well cast. And that part was written much more sympathetically than in the 1960 version. That's one of the reasons I liked the 1995 ending more. I also agree that the scene with the woman putting her hand in the boiling water was very disturbing. As was the scene with the ophthalmologist putting the caustic liquid in her eye. Both scenes well-acted and well-directed. BUT, the way some of those kinds of scenes were written didn't quite make sense. They should have had the children attacking village people who were purposefully doing things to harm them, rather than accidentally or unintentionally doing things that might be harmful to them. On the one hand, we're supposed to see these children as extremely rational and self-interested. But on the other, the children were ready to kill or maim some people who were trying to help them but accidentally hurt them. (There was some of this in the 1960 version too.) It made sense when the children were just babies or toddlers and wouldn't have known better, but not when they were older. And the scene with the ophthalmologist was kind of ridiculous because why would an ophthalmologist have kept such a dangerous chemical in an eyedropper bottle so close to the other eyedropper bottle, where they could easily be confused?
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Sept 16, 2020 6:46:16 GMT
7/10
|
|
Reynard
Sophomore
@reynard
Posts: 627
Likes: 291
|
Post by Reynard on Sept 26, 2020 0:45:01 GMT
Carpenter's 90s films sometimes feel like bigger budget television movies and The Village of the Damned sadly is no exception. Despite his usual use of 2.35 AR nothing really stands out, while in prime Carpenters every shot was very carefully framed. Casting is full of odd choices - not exactly bad, but... why exactly is Mark Hamill in this, for example? Carpenter's score is mostly bland, too. Well at least it's well paced and there's enough going on, so it's not boring, and there are some nice scenes, the graveyard meeting probably being my favorite. 5/10 The scene where Reeve's wife sticks her hand in the boiling pot is extremely disturbing. Especially as she gets pulled out and puts it back in! Yeah, that was by far the most effective scare scene. I wasn't expecting her to put the hand back, what the fuck.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jan 10, 2023 13:18:11 GMT
5/10
|
|