Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2017 0:00:59 GMT
The Exorcist cash-in with nothing going for it. A complete waste of time. Not scary at all - SHE BURNED HER HANDS ON THE COLD WINDOWPANE. OOOH!!! - and approximately 40% of the movie is Hopkins yelling "Audrey Rose!" over and over again. 1/10
|
|
|
Post by forca84 on Aug 29, 2017 2:19:59 GMT
I read the book ages ago. The movie to me was more of a drama not horror.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Aug 29, 2017 23:14:09 GMT
I read the book ages ago. The movie to me was more of a drama not horror. Agreed. Still liked it though.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 14, 2018 18:34:13 GMT
I thought it was decent. Marsha Mason's acting here is no better than anything else she's done (if she weren't Neil Simon's wife her film career would have been nonexistent, imo), but Hopkins is always worth watching; and the subject matter is somewhat thought-provoking. If you're looking for 'possession-type' horror flick, you won't get it here, but if you're interested in a fairly modulated supernatural suspenser this film isn't that bad.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 14, 2018 18:39:34 GMT
It started very good and had an eerie and creepy feeling over it, but then it made a sharp turn and became boring and I lost interest.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 14, 2018 20:59:35 GMT
It started very good and had an eerie and creepy feeling over it, but then it made a sharp turn and became boring and I lost interest. Actually, I sort of like some of the courtroom doings, the brief explication of the Indian ideas concerning the reincarnation cycle and such, and I think the climactic scene with Norman Lloyd's hypnosis of Swift is fairly eerie. Compared to most films of this genre, and of that era, it's maybe too low-key to really grab an audience, and probably should be tagged more as a drama with supernatural elements than as a 'horror' film.
|
|
rogerthat
Sophomore
@rogerthat
Posts: 734
Likes: 478
|
Post by rogerthat on Aug 14, 2018 22:13:08 GMT
I recently rewatched it and was decidedly annoyed by the titular character. I agree it is more of a drama that unfortunately had used horror marketing
Fun fact: the girl who played Audrey Rose would appear in Halloween 6. She's the nurse who helps Jamie and her baby escape in the beginning .
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Aug 16, 2018 19:13:09 GMT
Yeah I never really cared for Audrey Rose either. Rather dull and not scary at all.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Aug 16, 2018 21:48:54 GMT
Aspects of it almost play like a made for TV movie, probably accentuated by the fact that a number of the supporting cast were television staples of that time: Robert Walden, John Hillerman, Philip Sterling, Norman Lloyd. Even John Beck was more primarily TV than theatrical film presence. The tone of the film too, gives off something of a 'television' vibe. Not intending that demeaningly (there have been some quite good telefilm creepers from the Seventies), just thinking that this may be one reason why the film doesn't seem to play out as compellingly as might be expected from a major studio production. And I suspect that this film may have been made on a fairly restricted budget, which also adds to that feeling.
|
|