October Horror Movie Marathon

[MacBlayne]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Yes, but it does give the film more depth on the whole and actually adds atmosphere i thought. Plus a new scene at the end between Dyer and Kinderman kinda sets up The Exorcist III.

It's the 6:1 sound that's the deal breaker and hits you from all angles. Even simple little things like rustling leaves on the street and subway trains (Ok not so little) sound to be in the room with you.

I do like that final scene, but I not too pushwd about the other stuff. Even though the final scene is brilliant, I understand why Friedkin cut it. The job is done. We move on with our own inderstanding of the events.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

I'm interested to read what Nos thinks of the directors cut seeing as it's his favourite film.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

I'm interested to read what Nos thinks of the directors cut seeing as it's his favourite film.

Well, both versions have their merits, but it's worth looking at what happened in 1972 and in the years leading up to the release of the alternate version of the film.

By all accounts, the editing process was a battle of wills between William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty with Friedkin, who wanted a more cut-down film, prevailing over Blatty who was in favour of a longer movie with more scenes and additional dialogue. The two men didn't speak for a long time after but, in the late 1990s, they buried the hatchet and Friedkin agreed to look again at the film. What followed was an attempt to placate Blatty by creating a 'writer's version' including all of the scenes that Friedkin removed in 1973. The version released in 2000 was marketed as 'The Version You've Never Seen' and that line was on every DVD version but, on most Blu-ray boxes, it is now called the 'Extended Director's Cut'.

By taking advantage of CGI, there are numerous shots of the demonic face that is seen briefly during Karras' nightmare in the theatrical version plus, near the end, a very brief glimpse of Karras' mother on Regan's bedroom window just before he plunges through it to his death on M Street. As well as these shots that are incorrectly termed 'subliminal' (they aren't as you can actually see them), there is an additional 10 minutes of extra material plus a different beginning and ending that is more in line with what Blatty expected from the film.

The release of the extended cut (just as every re-release of the theatrical version had been and continues to be) was a massive hit but the financial success of every subsequent screening of The Exorcist makes it hard to distinguish which version audiences prefer.

I can only speak for myself but I think that Friedkin was right the first time and Blatty was looking at the film with his writer's hat on, being very protective of the screenplay he wrote based on his bestselling novel. There are certain scenes that don't really need to be there, adding nothing to the sense of growing unease and horror and the conversation between Fathers Merrin and Karras in the middle of the exorcism only reinforces what the audience (well, most of them anyway) already knew. Given a choice, I will always go for the 1973 theatrical version even though Friedkin gave the 'Extended Director's Cut' his seal of approval.

[MacBlayne]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Well, both versions have their merits, but it's worth looking at what happened in 1972 and in the years leading up to the release of the alternate version of the film.

By all accounts, the editing process was a battle of wills between William Friedkin and William Peter Blatty with Friedkin, who wanted a more cut-down film, prevailing over Blatty who was in favour of a longer movie with more scenes and additional dialogue. The two men didn't speak for a long time after but, in the late 1990s, they buried the hatchet and Friedkin agreed to look again at the film. What followed was an attempt to placate Blatty by creating a 'writer's version' including all of the scenes that Friedkin removed in 1973. The version released in 2000 was marketed as 'The Version You've Never Seen' and that line was on every DVD version but, on most Blu-ray boxes, it is now called the 'Extended Director's Cut'.

By taking advantage of CGI, there are numerous shots of the demonic face that is seen briefly during Karras' nightmare in the theatrical version plus, near the end, a very brief glimpse of Karras' mother on Regan's bedroom window just before he plunges through it to his death on M Street. As well as these shots that are incorrectly termed 'subliminal' (they aren't as you can actually see them), there is an additional 10 minutes of extra material plus a different beginning and ending that is more in line with what Blatty expected from the film.

The release of the extended cut (just as every re-release of the theatrical version had been and continues to be) was a massive hit but the financial success of every subsequent screening of The Exorcist makes it hard to distinguish which version audiences prefer.

I can only speak for myself but I think that Friedkin was right the first time and Blatty was looking at the film with his writer's hat on, being very protective of the screenplay he wrote based on his bestselling novel. There are certain scenes that don't really need to be there, adding nothing to the sense of growing unease and horror and the conversation between Fathers Merrin and Karras in the middle of the exorcism only reinforces what the audience (well, most of them anyway) already knew. Given a choice, I will always go for the 1973 theatrical version even though Friedkin gave the 'Extended Director's Cut' his seal of approval.

Brilliant breakdown, Nos!

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by MacBlayne

Brilliant breakdown, Nos!

[Nordicdusk]

Great read Nos

[Frankie Teardrop]

THE REJUVENATOR – With a title like that, an eighties vintage and gimmicks that include an injectable serum that could be revolutionary but ends up being the cause of some tacky prosthetic special effects, it’s not hard to see where ‘The Rejuvenator’ is coming from. An aging actress thinks that putting her money behind a newly discovered elixir of youth will wipe away her sorrows and worry lines; the mad doctor in her employ is no Herbert West, but he’s willing to stoop to murder to sort it all out. ‘The Rejuvenator’ should be a pleasant enough diversion for VHS completists looking for another dose of nostalgia. I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t undergone some kind of Hi Def rejuvenation of its own. All the elements are there, but don’t get your hopes up if you’re after something that really captures the spirit of all that stuff, its excesses are as reined in as the workmanlike style, the delivery and performances wouldn’t be out of step with soap operas and commercials from around the time, and for every moment of nicely grotesque expanding monster head freakery there’s a couple of stretches of people in lab coats arguing. There are a few funny bits, though. What about that glam goth cockney grave robber? He seems more interesting than the rest of ‘The Rejuvenator’ put together, and why is he carrying a fishing rod? Perhaps that’s the one question that can never be asked of a film where all the answers are basically “it’s a third-rate eighties B movie”.

[Demoncrat]

Another great review of a "terrible" film FT.



Hellraiser (2022, David Bruckner)

What I don't need during my genre film watching is the reminder that the rich always get what they want.
A pile of shit.
I ruminated overnight about whether twas actually worse than that Black Xmas thingy. It is.
This is from someone whom actually enjoyed the last Hellraiser flick btw.
Some nice moments doth not a great cohesive whole make, more like a different kind of hole.

NEXT.

[Dave Boy]

MV5BMTY4MTkxOTk1Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjAyODgwMzE@._V1_.jpg
MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935)

After a murder, everyone is convinced there are vampires living in the castle in the shape of Count Mora and his daughter Luna..

Watched this movie on the new Blu ray from Warner Archive.
The film looks awesome! Cracking picture makes this super atmospheric movie even better.

[MrBarlow]

The Devil Inside. 2012.

A young woman Isabella is making a documentary on her mother who killed two priests and a nun. In Italy, Isabella meet two priests who think that her mother may be possessed and investigate it without the church knowing.

Another found footage on the paranormal with some demonic possession or demonic transference, this was made on a $1 million budget so I did have some high hopes. Honestly this gave me a slight headache with the shaky camera, the makers did try something new but at the end you know what's going to happen.

p8787642_p_v8_ad.jpg

Up next The Devil's Men