Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
→ in Movie Reviews
Reply to Topic
I never heard of Greed before; I'll hit that after the 70's binge.
I don't know how well-versed you are in silent cinema. They can be a bit of an acquired taste, since we're so used to sound and dialogue and a different style of acting. I think the comedies of Chaplin and Keaton are easier entry points. It took me a little while to get into the flow of silent movies, but once I did, I've discovered some all-time favorites like Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, The Crowd, Nosferatu, Metropolis, City Lights, etc. Greed is the best of the bunch, in my opinion. It's easily the best movie I've seen since I joined this forum.
__________________
X
User Lists
That's high praise with all the good movies you've been watching. I watched Modern Times a couple months ago and enjoyed it very much. I imagine silent drama will be a little tougher for me like you say, but it's definitely something I have to try. Oh actually, I watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari; I couldn't really get into that one.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Exorcist
(William Friedkin, 1973)
(Starring: Linda Blair; Ellen Burstyn; Jason Miller; Max Von Sydow)
Some movies can be a victim of their own success, especially when it comes to later generations, and I think The Exorcist falls into that trap. Even though this was my first true viewing of the movie, I've seen so many scenes before--- the "pea-soup" scene, the "360-degree-head-turn" scene, "the power-of-Christ-compels-you" scene, as well as numerous other iconic scenes from the movie--- that it hampered my enjoyment of the movie. Watching The Exorcist in 2014, after seeing the movie discussed and parodied so many times over the years, is like reading a book after you've already read the Cliff Notes version, so nothing is a surprise, not even the ending, and the result is a somewhat underwhelming, disappointing experience. That's not a proper critique of the movie itself, however, since it isn't the movie's fault that, forty years after it release, it remains so iconic and so ingrained in popular culture. The longevity of The Exorcist is a testament to the movie's strength and its impact on the genre. It's just a shame that people like myself can't travel back to 1973 and watch The Exorcist in a theater when it was still fresh and new and hadn't already been spoiled and ripped off by countless inferiors.
Is The Exorcist the most frightening film of all time, as so many people label it? No, not even close. And I don't think I would've agreed with that claim even if I had seen the movie in 1973. What it is, however, is a slow-build of tension and dread and suspense that's effectively creepy and unsettling, which is then enhanced by a strong cast, great directing, a solid script, phenomenal special-effects, and an accompanying score that punctuates the horror and gets under your skin. The movie is remembered most for the shocking transformation of fresh-faced Linda Blair into the decomposing, demon-infested embodiment of evil; and appropriately so, since it taps into the parental fear of wanting to protect your child from harm and disease and, you know, demonic possession. (In a weird, twisted sense, I guess you could also say that The Exorcist is a metaphor for a really extreme case of puberty, where, instead of pimples, we get skin lacerations; in response to burgeoning, hormonal-induced desires of sexuality, we stab ourselves in the privates with a crucifix; and, as a result of feeling alienated and alone, we possess priests and propel them out of two-story windows. Normal stuff for any pubescent teenager.)
The highlight of the movie for me, however, was Jason Miller's portrayal of the guilt-ridden priest. The early scenes involving his mother, as well as the ensuing visions after her death, were some of the best scenes in the movie. During the exorcism, when the demon takes the form of the priest's deceased mother and preys on his feelings of guilt and abandonment, the effect is chilling. And speaking of the exorcism, the last thirty minutes of the movie, when the act finally takes place, is thrilling and exceptionally well-crafted. The movie is more of a slow-burn than I expected, but the methodical pace adds to the gravity of the final sequence. When Max Von Sydow finally arrives outside the house, briefcase in tow, in that iconic shot that's often used on the posters and box-covers of the movie, you know that *****'s about to go down. I also appreciate that most of the characters, especially for a horror movie, remain level-headed about the proceedings. Even the priest, instead of immediately jumping on the exorcism bandwagon, approaches the matter with skepticism and rationalism.
It's unfortunate that The Exorcist's legacy has essentially handicapped it for modern audiences. We've heard "Luke, I am your father," long before we watch The Empire Strikes Back. We've seen the iconic shower scene in Psycho years before we watch the actual movie. And we've already had the majority of thrills from the The Exorcist spoiled for us long before we get to put those iconic scenes in context. As a result, despite being a very effective horror movie and containing many great elements, I can't help but feel that The Exorcist is a tad overrated.
(William Friedkin, 1973)
(Starring: Linda Blair; Ellen Burstyn; Jason Miller; Max Von Sydow)
Some movies can be a victim of their own success, especially when it comes to later generations, and I think The Exorcist falls into that trap. Even though this was my first true viewing of the movie, I've seen so many scenes before--- the "pea-soup" scene, the "360-degree-head-turn" scene, "the power-of-Christ-compels-you" scene, as well as numerous other iconic scenes from the movie--- that it hampered my enjoyment of the movie. Watching The Exorcist in 2014, after seeing the movie discussed and parodied so many times over the years, is like reading a book after you've already read the Cliff Notes version, so nothing is a surprise, not even the ending, and the result is a somewhat underwhelming, disappointing experience. That's not a proper critique of the movie itself, however, since it isn't the movie's fault that, forty years after it release, it remains so iconic and so ingrained in popular culture. The longevity of The Exorcist is a testament to the movie's strength and its impact on the genre. It's just a shame that people like myself can't travel back to 1973 and watch The Exorcist in a theater when it was still fresh and new and hadn't already been spoiled and ripped off by countless inferiors.
Is The Exorcist the most frightening film of all time, as so many people label it? No, not even close. And I don't think I would've agreed with that claim even if I had seen the movie in 1973. What it is, however, is a slow-build of tension and dread and suspense that's effectively creepy and unsettling, which is then enhanced by a strong cast, great directing, a solid script, phenomenal special-effects, and an accompanying score that punctuates the horror and gets under your skin. The movie is remembered most for the shocking transformation of fresh-faced Linda Blair into the decomposing, demon-infested embodiment of evil; and appropriately so, since it taps into the parental fear of wanting to protect your child from harm and disease and, you know, demonic possession. (In a weird, twisted sense, I guess you could also say that The Exorcist is a metaphor for a really extreme case of puberty, where, instead of pimples, we get skin lacerations; in response to burgeoning, hormonal-induced desires of sexuality, we stab ourselves in the privates with a crucifix; and, as a result of feeling alienated and alone, we possess priests and propel them out of two-story windows. Normal stuff for any pubescent teenager.)
The highlight of the movie for me, however, was Jason Miller's portrayal of the guilt-ridden priest. The early scenes involving his mother, as well as the ensuing visions after her death, were some of the best scenes in the movie. During the exorcism, when the demon takes the form of the priest's deceased mother and preys on his feelings of guilt and abandonment, the effect is chilling. And speaking of the exorcism, the last thirty minutes of the movie, when the act finally takes place, is thrilling and exceptionally well-crafted. The movie is more of a slow-burn than I expected, but the methodical pace adds to the gravity of the final sequence. When Max Von Sydow finally arrives outside the house, briefcase in tow, in that iconic shot that's often used on the posters and box-covers of the movie, you know that *****'s about to go down. I also appreciate that most of the characters, especially for a horror movie, remain level-headed about the proceedings. Even the priest, instead of immediately jumping on the exorcism bandwagon, approaches the matter with skepticism and rationalism.
It's unfortunate that The Exorcist's legacy has essentially handicapped it for modern audiences. We've heard "Luke, I am your father," long before we watch The Empire Strikes Back. We've seen the iconic shower scene in Psycho years before we watch the actual movie. And we've already had the majority of thrills from the The Exorcist spoiled for us long before we get to put those iconic scenes in context. As a result, despite being a very effective horror movie and containing many great elements, I can't help but feel that The Exorcist is a tad overrated.
Last edited by Captain Spaulding; 06-08-14 at 07:28 PM.
X
User Lists
Out of curiosity, if you guys could go back in time and watch any movie on opening night, especially before any scenes or twists had been spoiled for you, what movie would you choose?
This is a hypothetical situation I've discussed with my friends before, and the movie that always springs to the front of my mind is Psycho. Like I stated in the review for The Exorcist, the shower scene is so iconic that most of us have seen it long before we watch the actual movie. For many, the twist about Norma Bates has also been spoiled, although luckily I was spared in that regard. Psycho is already one of my top-ten favorite movies of all time, so I would've loved to sit in the theater, still a virgin to all its twists and turns, and witness the shower scene for the first time, not knowing that it was coming.
Even when I watched Psycho for the first time several years ago, I was surprised at how early in the movie that scene occurs, especially considering that Janet Leigh had been our lead the entire time. As soon as she turns on the faucet, though, I immediately knew what was about to happen. But imagine watching the movie not knowing that the curtain is about to be pulled back, the knife raised, etc. I can't even imagine how awesome that would've been.
So, mofos, what would your choice be?
This is a hypothetical situation I've discussed with my friends before, and the movie that always springs to the front of my mind is Psycho. Like I stated in the review for The Exorcist, the shower scene is so iconic that most of us have seen it long before we watch the actual movie. For many, the twist about Norma Bates has also been spoiled, although luckily I was spared in that regard. Psycho is already one of my top-ten favorite movies of all time, so I would've loved to sit in the theater, still a virgin to all its twists and turns, and witness the shower scene for the first time, not knowing that it was coming.
Even when I watched Psycho for the first time several years ago, I was surprised at how early in the movie that scene occurs, especially considering that Janet Leigh had been our lead the entire time. As soon as she turns on the faucet, though, I immediately knew what was about to happen. But imagine watching the movie not knowing that the curtain is about to be pulled back, the knife raised, etc. I can't even imagine how awesome that would've been.
So, mofos, what would your choice be?
X
User Lists
Oh boy, there are so many that I would love to see without knowing anything about them. But personally I would go with The Empire Strikes Back.
Just imagine being in the movie theater during it's initial release and experiencing everything for the very first time.
Just imagine being in the movie theater during it's initial release and experiencing everything for the very first time.
Oh boy, there are so many that I would love to see without knowing anything about them. But personally I would go with The Empire Strikes Back.
Just imagine being in the movie theater during it's initial release and experiencing everything for the very first time.
Just imagine being in the movie theater during it's initial release and experiencing everything for the very first time.
X
User Lists
Well, I saw The Empire Strikes Back the first day at the theatre, and I knew the twist ending. I didn't believe it until I actually saw it for myself, but Cinefantastique, a magazine my brother and I regularly read, and my bro later wrote for, had done the unforgivable and revealed it. It didn't really take away from the experience though because the photography and sound is so all-enveloping in that scene, but it was a bit disappointing after the fact. It didn't make me boycott the magazine, and they were better at reveals in the future. Besides, I don't think many people read that issue before the release.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Out of curiosity, if you guys could go back in time and watch any movie on opening night, especially before any scenes or twists had been spoiled for you, what movie would you choose?
Star Wars (1977) for me
this is how it'd work if i had my way. i'd get sent back in a time machine, i'd remember every movie i've seen that was released before 1977. but for every movie that came afterwards, my memory would be wiped for my time travel trip. (preserved in a case or whatever to be restored once i return)
then i'd sit back and be an innocent and previously unaware eyewitness
I think you're absolutely right about how new viewers react to seeing The Exorcist now; I've heard it a few times on this forum. My parents took me with them to see The Exorcist when I was just 2 years old. The Exorcist, The Omen, and to a lesser extent, Carrie, gave me nightmares for years. I got the full effect of The Exorcist, it's still a little uncomfortable for me to watch, and it will always be a five star movie for me. Incidentally, The Shining and Trilogy of Terror also gave me nightmares. The only movies my parents held back from me were Alien and Dawn of the Dead. I didn't see those until I was 10.
As for your question about which movie I would've loved to see in the theater- I'll go with my first childhood favorite, The Wizard of Oz.
As for your question about which movie I would've loved to see in the theater- I'll go with my first childhood favorite, The Wizard of Oz.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
My parents took me with them to see The Exorcist when I was just 2 years old.
X
User Lists
I used to get nightmares as a kid just from watching Nickelodeon's Are You Afraid of the Dark?, so seeing The Exorcist in theaters at the age of two would've probably traumatized me for life. How did you not bawl the entire two hours and drive everyone else in the theater bonkers? Or did you?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Funnily enough, I was watching Psycho again last night on Sky Movies with my brother and I thought 'I wish I could have been there when this was released', I have seen it probably about five times now and it continues to surprise me with just how good it is.
Other than that I am not sure what film I would say. Whilst I am not the biggest fan (no complaint, but on the level of some of the guys in here), culturally important films like Star Wars would have been epic to see at the time on the big screen, then there are films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather. There's a whole load of others that would have been great as well, American films aside (being around for the "New Hollywood era" of the 70s must have been so good), I would have loved to have been alive at the time of the French new wave and managed to get my hands on the new films that were coming through at the time.
By the way, good review on The Exorcist. I'd probably rate it a touch higher. I have seen it countless times as it's my step-brothers favourite film and he always seems to put it on when he comes round
Other than that I am not sure what film I would say. Whilst I am not the biggest fan (no complaint, but on the level of some of the guys in here), culturally important films like Star Wars would have been epic to see at the time on the big screen, then there are films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather. There's a whole load of others that would have been great as well, American films aside (being around for the "New Hollywood era" of the 70s must have been so good), I would have loved to have been alive at the time of the French new wave and managed to get my hands on the new films that were coming through at the time.
By the way, good review on The Exorcist. I'd probably rate it a touch higher. I have seen it countless times as it's my step-brothers favourite film and he always seems to put it on when he comes round
X
Favorite Movies
I used to get nightmares as a kid just from watching Nickelodeon's Are You Afraid of the Dark?
X
Favorite Movies
Tomorrow evening sometime, Honeykid, Nostromo87 and I are doing a Mannequin commentary. We'd love to have you if you can make it.
X
User Lists
Tomorrow evening sometime, Honeykid, Nostromo87 and I are doing a Mannequin commentary. We'd love to have you if you can make it.
Why are you guys willing to do that to yourselves anyway? Are you sadists or is this like a group suicide kind of thing?
X
User Lists
Big Jake
(George Sherman, 1971)
In a surprisingly brutal opening, a gang of outlaws rides into the family ranch of Big Jake (John Wayne) and proceed to kill nearly every man, woman and child in the vicinity, illustrating their cruel and dangerous nature. When they kidnap Big Jake's grandson, it's up to the Duke to track them down. The first 45 minutes or so of the movie is very strong, with the aforementioned opening, along with Wayne's introduction and an elaborate shoot-out that results in multiple casualties. From there, however, the movie slowly loses its steam. Big Jake's estranged sons accompany him on the trip, and there are several forced scenes that try to emphasize their awkward relationship. It doesn't help that the actors playing Jake's sons give very poor performances. The occasional goofy humor stands out like a sore thumb as well, since it clashes with the movie's tone. I watched The Shootist recently, and I was a bit taken aback and saddened by how sickly Wayne appeared in that movie. Big Jake was released five years earlier, and it's obvious that Wayne was in much better health at that point in time, since he still has his trademark swagger and vitality. Richard Boone's performance as the main antagonist is also a highlight of the movie. Big Jake is a solid, traditional western, but it could have been so much better if the second half had maintained the strong momentum of the first half.
The Mercenary
(Sergio Corbucci, 1968)
If you watch enough spaghetti westerns, you start to notice that, despite varying plots, the basic formula remains the same. I'm generally okay with that, since it's a formula that I continue to enjoy, but sometimes, like when watching The Mercenary, I long for something different and a little less predictable. Franco Nero (the original Django) plays the typical mysterious gunslinger with a ridiculously fast draw that is seen in so many films of this genre. In return for financial gain, he fights alongside a group of revolutionaries, led by a Mexican Colonel who reminds me of a cross between Tuco and Lee Van Cleef's character from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. Jack Palance, with his unique physical features, makes for an interesting villain. There are some great shoot-outs and badass quips, along with a trademark Morricone score. I loved the showdown near the end (always my favorite part about these spaghetti westerns), but overall I thought The Mercenary was fairly average.
Guns for San Sebastian
(Henri Verneuil, 1968)
Unlike The Mercenary, Guns for San Sebastian is absent of gunslingers and almost completely devoid of gunfire, allowing it to distance itself from other spaghetti westerns in a manner that I found quite endearing. Anthony Quinn continues to impress me in every role I've seen, and Guns for San Sebastian is no exception. He plays an outlaw who develops a bond with an old, saintly priest. When they stumble into the crumbling remains of a dying town, the priest is shot and killed, and Quinn, despite being an atheist, puts on the robes and is then mistaken for a priest by the bullied townspeople. He develops a bond with the people and helps them fight off a Charles Bronson-led gang of predatory Indians. Quinn, despite his rough exterior, often infuses his characters with genuine tenderness (his excellent performance in 1962's Requiem for a Heavyweight, one of my all-time favorite movies, comes to mind), and the same is true in Guns for San Sebastian. The movie is more reserved and stoical than most films of this type, and there's little action until the last 30 minutes or so, but when the time comes for bullets and blood, the movie doesn't hold back or come up short. Guns for San Sebastian is a very underrated, atypical spaghetti western. I enjoyed it quite a bit. A pleasant surprise.
Last edited by Captain Spaulding; 06-11-14 at 01:40 PM.
X
