[Jagged]

 

  

  Toetag said:

I consider the original 1973 movie to be a stand alone work, open to interpretation.

 

Except it isn't is it? Rather it sounds to me like you just want to manipulate the facts to support your interpretation.

Not the best way to propose a hypothesis.

[Jagged]

Toetag said:

If I'm wrong, and you have a constructive way to set me straight, please, by all means, do so. 

---

---

I suspect the answers lie in most of the other replies to the original poster and if you'd read them first instead of just dismissing other peoples knowledge out of hand you may have received a better response.
 

Specifically, Blatty is on record as saying it was “the entity known as Pazuzu”, written long before the appearance of Boorman's shoddy sequal.

The whole prologue is pretty much designed to inform us it was Pazuzu and Merrin is familiar with him, and in the film he handily pops up and says howdy folks during the exorcism.

The Demon himself in the novel apologises for claiming to be Satan and admits to being a lesser demon.

There has, over the years been a wealth of document published to the effect of correcting the impression (mostly afflicting viewers of the film only) that the possessor was the Devil.

Now I'll grant you that it's possible that the existence of the Pazuzu entity is just a bluff for something else but… Occam's razor and all that.

[Jagged]

But for some reason it never seems to work if you're looking for attractive naked ladies…

[Jagged]

If I remember rightly he claimed that there was a skull above Karras' shoulder during his reading of the mass in church and a brace of faces etc. during the ritual at the end. He did however claim that the faces in the breath were lated excised from all prints thereby never having to prove his theory in the video age.

You look long enough at smoke, clouds and frozen breath you can see almost anything you want in them.

As for the skull over Karras' shoulder, it can be seen if you look hard enough, it is however just shadows.

[Jagged]

The posters seem to use something like Albertus, try this link

http://www.identifont.com

 

However the original book and screen title font are different to the one used on the posters. I suspect it may have been commisioned but I will search through my Linotype and Monotype catalogues for you when I get a spare hour.

 

Ian

[Jagged]

I enjoyed every second of that. Nice work fella.

[Jagged]

Which are oddly the same 3 reasons the rest of us dislike it.

A lot (not all) of us tend to think all those scenes are either poorly done or just distracting and unnecessary, especially the extra subliminals which are just crudely added, unlike the ones in the original version which were thoroughly planned and expertly utilised.

 

As for the new sound, why mess with something that was already superb, oscar winning and groundbreaking. Many of the sounds that were worked so hard on in the original were swamped or missing in TVYNS. That's not enhancement, it's butchery.

 

The spiderwalk was cut for good reason. it looks unconvincing. Had the execution been better I'm sure Friedkin would have found a way to re-work the scene to deal with the “double climax”.

[Jagged]

I quite liked it too, enough even to not want to whine about Benicio del Toro and his mumbling.

It's a pretty atmospheric movie with some good moments, one of Holywoods better remakes of recent times. In fact, I may give it another watch tonight 🙂

[Jagged]

Oddly of all Cronenberg's films it's my least favourite. For some reason it has never really worked for me. Don't get me wrong, it's an ok film but not a patch on such salacious fare as Videodrome or Rabid. I'm really not sure what it is that marks it down in my book, it's something I've tried to pin down before. Maybe it's just that I prefer the cheesy 50s original. Cronenberg's version seems too highly wrought, and definitely suffers from a surfeit of hideous 1980s style.  I definitely don't find it gut wrenching, although I'm aware many others do.

But then, I didn't think “The Shining” was a masterpiece either 😉

[Jagged]

I've always thought those few frames of Dietz were there to make us do a double take and say “WTF”? That's the effect it had on me on first viewing, just another of those little things that made me ask myself “what did I just see”? Consequently when the VHS appeared in the 80s it was the very first thing that I forwarded to and freeze framed as it had always stayed in my mind.

[Jagged]

I think the guys just got his facts muddled regarding running times and what extra footage is in which edition.

[Jagged]

Couldn't possibly say, I don't know about such things.

But i'd guess “the pirate bay” would be your best bet

[Jagged]

Father Bowdern said:

Just picked up the BR for the 50th Anniversary of Psycho. Naturally, I went to the shower scene … best picture ever and best newly created 5.1 audio. Bernard Herrmann would shit his pants if he hear baby.

Father Bowdern

---

I keep walking past that in my local store wondering “should I buy it”? Is it worth it over the last DVD?

[Jagged]

I still say there is no way that scene in the movie can in any way be described as masturbation.

That's how they got away with it.

[Jagged]

Yep. I wasn't blown away by them, when I feel I should have been. Not that I don't appreciate their efforts, it's just I could have taken a couple more hours worth of the behind the scenes footage quite easily. Even without any commentary.

But to be fair, we are all a bit fanatical here. I suspect it would be asking a lot to be able to provide something new and interesting enough to make our jaws drop

 

Damn I need a spell checker!

[Author]

Posts