Discussion in 'Movies' started by Snarky's Ghost, Jan 18, 2019.
Any other favourite titles?
Oh, so many -- including TV movies, too. It was what the horror genre in the '70s was mostly about. But then I didn't tend to like them very much.
What caused this trend? The success of Rosemary's Baby?
Partly, I'm sure.
I didn´t watch it at the time and it hasn´t been re-aired here in Spain (where it was re-titled "Detroit"...as in France too). Anyway, the cast was good enough to take a risk and in the worst scenario it would have made an "it´s so bad that it´s good" soapy mini-series.
Good ol´Rock still was a silver dilf (I think that´s what they call them now...), Remick looked wonderfully glamorous, and look at the rest of the cast...
Blair Brown!!! Mark Graison!! Jessica Walter!! James Carroll Jordan from Book 2 of "Rich Man, Poor Man"! And an impressively group of old actors who wouldn´t find a one-episode stint in any of the 3 "big" US networks today...because of ageism. I think this would be worth watching, I hope someone puts it up "there" so to say...or "down" there...Whatever.
This publicity ad for "Wheels" seems to have been done by the same person who did the Rock Hudson-Linda Evans picnic photo montage on "Dienasty"...
Back to topic, I agree with @Barbara Fan and prefer "The Omen" over "The Exorcist", maybe because the latter has been spoofed so often (even by its main star Linda Blair) that I can´t take it seriously anymore. Though I did like the prequel they did more recently (director´s cut please...).
"Is that you, Lindsay...?"
"The Omen" was way more interesting and prestigious in every way, from the whole cast (with all respect due to the great work of Burstyn, von Sydow and J. Cobb in "TE"...) to the soundtrack and from the scary scenes to the fact that, to me, its 2 first sequels were quite more appealing than what came after the first "Exorcist" (which anyway attracted a lot of excellent actors to it, like Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher, George C. Scott and even a cameo of then-unknown Samuel L. Jackson in Part 3).
"It´s him, oh yeah..."
All in all, I´d dare to say that it was a sum of all factors what made these movies and this genre resurrect (though it was never dead, ahem...): good acting, scary scenes you loved to watch in a theater with friends or dates, chilling atmosphere, amazing music and direction...And yes, I think "Rosemary´s Baby" already had all that, and maybe it was the one that led the producers to follow the trend, but there are many others from the 60´s that also were very good (including the awfully titled genre of "horror hag movies" which I (and Miss Piggy too) prefer to call "grand guignol"...).
Moi has just found out that "Baby Jane" homaged "Psycho" itself!!!!!
From "The Innocents" to the Davis-Crawford vehicles (together and separately), to the gorgeous-looking B/W Hammer films to "The Haunting", all of them were scary as hell and, what moviemakers did in the 70´s was trying to make them more realistic and gory. I´d take anyone from this decade over the self-parodies that were made in the 80´s that everybody considers as "horror movies"...
Oh and I still think that Elizabeth Gilles is the reincarnation of Chucky´s Bride...
Catchy name for a soap. Maybe this should have been Aaron Spelling's movie-to-series, instead of Hotel. Or both!
I'd definitely watch it, I'm a sucker for 70s and 80s mini-series.
The Exorcist sequels were trash.
Of course it's about pushing boundaries, but moral and social standards change with the times, I think.
Maybe there were things they simply couldn't show in 1960s horror movies.
A mainstream smash hit like Game Of Thrones would never have happened in the 1980s, and certainly not in America.
But many movie makers of the 1970s had this uncanny talent for atmosphere, sort of a fascinating sickness, and the early 80s movies still had it.
I enjoyed all the Aliens sequels but the first one was beautifully creepy.
Rosemary's Baby wow was that film awful. it has a memorable endings i give you that but the film is so bad that i haven't even gotten through the whole thing cause i was so bored.
it's not often that i have to shut a film off cause it's so boring and awful. but that's one of them actually, it's not at all the worst i've ever seen either, the velvet vampire a film from (1971) is far far far worse. that one nothing at all happens until like the last 10-15 minutes it has nothing good about that film at all other than the women are good looking and you can't say a film is good at least i don't. i love 70's horror films such as the black comedy Arnold from (1973) that one is just so different and such a good film and has such a great cast. for those who get curious i think you tube has it on there.
if you want a good one watch the Pilot of Night Gallery' the show itself i never thought was very good but the pilot is brilliant. anyways honestly i haven't Exorcist 3 yet. i've always wanted to but i've just never gotten around to it. i even like Exorcist 2 as well. but it really depends on what cut you watch of it i think. i forget which version i prefer cause it's been so long since i watched any version of it. but i do get why that one flopped but really the film wasn't really a bad idea it just had far too many WTF's were they thinking?
i haven't seen all of the Omen sequels/remakes but i have seen the 2nd one i liked it and thought it was decent but it wasn't that great of a film. i haven't seen the 3rd one but i do have the books of the i think 1st three films. i just have never gotten around to read them actually.
And yet you rate that awful Amityville movie as great horror. Shame on you, darkshadows
no i didn't say the amityville films were great,i haven't seen the remake to be fair. or any of the recent ones either, but i said the first three are watchable and the rest were just plain awful. and the first three are actually about the house the rest at least up until the late 90's weren't even about the house as that had blown up at the end of part 3. so they were cursed items. if i want to watch something good about cursed items i'll watch the tv show of Friday the 13th now that's a great show.
but having said that they did get the creepy parts in amityville done right. hence why i had nightmares from i think it was part 3? ya know the 1st three films what they really needed anyways were better scripts and they would have been even more fun to watch. the ones after that were just plain awful even in just concept.
see the series shouldn't be about cursed objects but the actual house. but it's been proven that house isn't haunted at all, if so than how can i think it was the last owners? they lived there for years upon years before they moved and had they had the same problems they wouldn't have been there for years at all. that's how i see it anyways, the FX in those films for the time are pretty good i think too for the time they were made in. i've read the first book a couple times and it's a great book but it's fiction as the author years later said it was made up himself. though it was advertised as a true story. great book though i never did finish the books he wrote after that first one though which are total fiction i believe too..
Although I respect the actors and talent involved with THE EXORCIST, and the filmmakers' efforts are impressive, little is left to the imagination.
Hmmm.... William Friedkin is a Triple Virgo ---- 666.... Heh. Makes sense. Explains CRUISING, too.
I've always kind of seen the '70s as the peak of cinema (although every decade has its junk). A kind of moody naturalism maybe.
Oh, yes, the early-'60s shockers were the best.
AMITYVILLE was really poorly done. When I read that the author of the book claimed he really liked the movie, I knew his story was a lie --- nobody who'd supposedly lived through that could have approved of the way the film portrayed it.
that's not a bad Argument actually lol, i have read the book like i said a couple times and i agree that it doesn't do the book justice, the book is good though the book is complete fiction and i'm glad it is. what i find funny as hell is i remember reading back in my 20's maybe my teens that part 2 takes place in (1974 ) right? well Ronald DeFeo uses a walkman in it, the company was around that time if my memory is served right, but the walkman itself that is most well known where you use a cassette with it wasn't invented or rather put out to the public until (1980) i believe. and if i'm wrong than it's gotta be off by a couple years at least. well okay i was wrong it wasn't (1980) it was (1979-2010) if wikipedia is right.
the film was made to hazard a guess in (1981) either way the film makers were wrong to think that was out back than. it only really matter if you are picky like me and think it's funny like i do. the film is no masterpiece, it needed a better cast and script. but the film for me anyways isn't awful by any means it's decent
I think the scariest part was before she was completely transformed. Like I've said before, you know what to expect from a monster.
my favorite part was after she became transformed i think cause it was such good make-up and i think part 2 would have been a bit better had she put the make-up on again but i also don't mean i want a remake of the 1st film either. but than who can blame here for not wanting to wear it again? hell even Tim Curry didn't want to do it again after all the make-up he had to do for Legend. he had to be promised they wouldn't do that and he would only have to do only a certain amount of make-up for when he did Pennywise, who can blame him really?
I like them both, but am far more creeped out and interested in The Exorcist. I went to see the stage play in Birmingham a couple of years ago, and a clever technique made it look like the actress' head was actually spinning. It was a brilliant play.
I find the whole possession concept fascinating, but there is something about Regan and how the Demon is portrayed that makes The Exorcist more frightening for me. Also I feel the viewer can sympathise with Regan more and you want her to be okay, whereas Damien is just a little bastard.
@Mel O'Drama - when you're watching it, if you do, picture this on the Demon's head:
Both are very good horror movies, but I give The Exorcist the edge because imho it had more depth. Besides the nightmare at hand, freeing Regan from the demon, there was the underlying struggle with faith and the existence of a loving God in a world of evil. Fr. Karras raises this profound question with Fr. Merrin: why would God allow a demon to possess a little girl? This is the basic conundrum of why do the innocent suffer? This is raised in several ways throughout the movie through the examples of Fr. Karras' mother, the housekeepers' situation with their daughter(although I don't believe was in the movie), the housekeeper's husband being harassed by the director for being German, the effect her parents' divorce has has on Regan, basic human loneliness, to name a few. The Omen isva good thriller and has some wonderful actors, but I don't believe it ever really gets beneath the surface and addresses the human condition. It focuses more on shocking ways people will die and building up the tension until the final scene. It does this well, but The Exorcist has more "little" scenes and dialogue that one can really consider and discuss.
The Exorcist, of course. I agree with everything Mark Kermode says about this film. Check out his very perceptive and erudite accounts on Google.
I prefer "The Omen"; the thought that Damien, a little boy, could be irredeemably evil is very creepy. I even enjoyed the remake which, as remakes go, wasn't half bad. I saw "The Exorcist" once and that was enough for me but I've watched "The Omen" multiple times.
Separate names with a comma.