|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 16, 2017 1:33:38 GMT
Released by Columbia in 1957, CURSE OF THE DEMON stars an uncomfortable-looking Dana Andrews as a debunker of satanic cults and demonology in general. We know, of course, that Dr. Holden (Andrews) is wrong, that there is such a thing as a "demon from hell." Why? Because we see one within the first ten minutes of this great movie, and it's a doozy.
I'd read about Curse of the Demon years ago in an old Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine but never had a chance to see it as a kid. Since adulthood, however, I've seen it many times and own a great DVD that features both the US cut and the UK cut (known as "Night of the Demon," which is better, IMO). Totally engrossing, with some genuinely eerie scenes--along with shots of a kickass demon--Curse of the Demon is a classic in every regard. Peggy Cummins, who plays the female lead, is still living, by the way. She's beautiful here and very much the empowered woman.
Anybody else have any love for Curse of the Demon?
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 16, 2017 1:37:52 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 1:44:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wesley Crusher on Feb 16, 2017 2:24:11 GMT
I was debating either a 7 or 8 rating for Curse of the Demon ... It's a terrific film. I could not persuade myself it deserved an 8 ... so I settled on a 7.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 16, 2017 2:51:37 GMT
Thanks for posting that link. I'd give Curse an 8, definitely. What do you consider an 8?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 17:29:02 GMT
Brilliant film, great acting 👍
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 16, 2017 17:43:34 GMT
Someone from Curse of the Demon appeared with Don Knotts in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken!" Can you name him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 17:47:56 GMT
I have that DVD that includes both cuts of the movie. A good, under valued horror film.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 16, 2017 18:52:12 GMT
I have that DVD that includes both cuts of the movie. A good, under valued horror film. What are the differences between the two cuts? I know the UK version has a longer seance scene.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 19:04:00 GMT
I have that DVD that includes both cuts of the movie. A good, under valued horror film. What are the differences between the two cuts? I know the UK version has a longer seance scene.
As per the notes of a user at IMDb:
Taking "Night of..." as the complete, definitive cut, I decided to channel my inner obsessive geek and compare both versions on my DVD (do not know how either compare to broadcast versions). There are minor scene cuts in "Curse of...": -Opening narration -Airplane scene (Joanna tries to change her seat to avoid bothering Holden) -Airport scene (where Holden first declares his nonbelief, to the reporters) -Karswell at the library talking about coincidence -Minor business at the Lufford Hall party -Meek channeling the litle girl -Hobart describing the beliefs of the cult
There are other cuts or deleted scenes of more import: -after Kumar's entrance, Karswell calls Holden to discourage him -Karswell's library in the party scene. Joanna pointedly asks him about the runic symbols; Karswell warns his mother about interfering -Holden visits the Hobart farm, learns Rand Hobart had passed his curse on to another -Mrs. Karswell calls Joanna, urging her to tell Holden that Hobart knew the secret of the parchment
Then, a large part of the movie is moved in "Curse" - everything after the library scene through the party scene in "Night" is shifted to after the scene where Holden hears demonic chittering in the hotel corridor, then over drinks with O'Brien, hears from him that the pages of his journal after Oct. 28th had been torn out. (The party scene, where Karswell predicted Holden's death on the 28th, would have come before this disquieting revelation).
Long story short, my recommendation is to seek out the longer original. The story works in both versions, but "Night" flows better IMO, and I do like the Hobart farm scene.
This person obviously did their homework.
|
|
|
Post by profondorosso on Feb 20, 2017 11:35:23 GMT
Great movie!
|
|
|
Post by forca84 on Feb 20, 2017 23:33:35 GMT
One of my favorites. I was riveted the first time I saw it as a Teen on TCM. Great Halloween viewing.
|
|
|
Post by meandmybigmouth on Feb 22, 2017 22:39:36 GMT
Great film. Although i do feel that the opening scene kind of ruins the movie.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 22, 2017 22:51:10 GMT
Great film. Although i do feel that the opening scene kind of ruins the movie. You mean when we see the demon? I loved it!
|
|
|
Post by meandmybigmouth on Feb 22, 2017 23:26:46 GMT
Great film. Although i do feel that the opening scene kind of ruins the movie. You mean when we see the demon? I loved it! It sort of ruined the whole mystery
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 23, 2017 0:37:26 GMT
You mean when we see the demon? I loved it! It sort of ruined the whole mystery Oh, I gotta disagree. I thought it was very effective and very scary.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 17, 2017 21:38:34 GMT
One of the best horror films ever made, The NIGHT OF THE DEMON released in the UK on December 17, 1957 (the star Dana Andrews, coincidentally, died on the same day in the early 90s).
The book on the making of the film, Beating the Devil, reveals all sorts of interesting tidbits. Contrary to popular belief, the demon was meant to be shown as real, this was confirmed by the shooting script itself, just not to the extent it actually was shown. The trailer for the film shows a shot of the demon with bat wings spread out-this is not in the final film.
Robert Taylor originally wanted to make the film before the script was sold (ironic, since Taylor often comes up as the ideal choice for Marvel's Dr Strange).
Dana Andrews was so drunk when making it he fell off the plane when he arrived to film. But aside from some slurred speech he did his job admirably, and even used his clout to get a bigger wind machine for the party estate scene when the producer wanted to go cheap.
The filmmakers did not want Niall MacGinnis for Karswell. Funny, since I think he gives the most crucial performance. Karswell is a sympathetic bad guy thanks to MacGinnis' performance. I heard that after he retired from acting, MacGinnis went back to his previous profession-a physician.
Peggy Cummins attended a screening of the film earlier this year.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 17, 2017 21:45:49 GMT
Saw it when I was a kid in Florida in the 1970's (on Creature Feature if I remember correctly), so my memories are hazy. Mostly I remember a piece of paper blowing along railroad tracks and defying the man's attempt to catch up with it. Very eerily done. A minor classic.
On the old IMDb I remember someone saying that Jacques Tourneur didn't want the demon to be visible but he was overruled, so that audiences would not feel cheated if they watched the whole movie and never saw what the demon looked like.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 17, 2017 21:59:14 GMT
That claim keeps coming up (also in the 1974 book Classics of the Horror Film). The demon was supposed to be shown to the audience so they know that the threat facing Holden is real when he is passed the parchment. But either Tourneur felt they showed it too much or later on decided they shouldn't have shown it at all-but it was explicit in the script that the demon be real.
The writer was also on the Hollywood blacklist so he had to go to England to find work.
While making the film Andrews met the Queen and told her he was making a film on witchcraft.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Dec 18, 2017 15:01:15 GMT
When I watched it on TCM it was introduced with the idea that there were rival versions and the producer and the director didn't agree on whether or not the demon should be shown explicitly on screen. The version that was shown on the channel was the one that included the stellar special effects. Excellent work for sure, but I could see the argument for excluding the demon, at least perhaps, until the end of the film so that it could maintain some mystery. But it certainly looked excellent and very impressive.
Overall, with that controversy aside, it was a really enjoyable film and one of the best horror movies of the 50s, and undoubtedly some of the best effects of any genre movie of that era.
|
|