Cloverfield Director To Remake Let The Right One In

[JeetKuneDo]

The Exorcist is one of the most overrated movies in the history of cinema. Overrated is an overused term but in the case of The Exorcist, it is the correct term.

Boorman has made good and bad movies, but Excalibur is one of the greatest films ever made.

For some reason...I've never seen The Exorcist. (runs)

I'll have to at least see it at some point.

 

[CrimsonMist]

The Exorcist is one of the most overrated movies in the history of cinema. Overrated is an overused term but in the case of The Exorcist, it is the correct term.

Boorman has made good and bad movies, but Excalibur is one of the greatest films ever made.

Well, i first saw The Exorcist when i was 5...yea. Even now, I can't bring myself to sit down and re-watch it. There was a trailer for the anniversary blu-ray on the SPLICE dvd and I couldn't sit through it. I read a recent issue of Rue Morgue magazine that had an article on the film and I couldn't finish it because I could have sworn that the picture of Possessed Linda Blair was looking right at me. I can't watch the sequels either. It just...scares the hell out of me.

but yes, and I will swear this until the day I die, that Excalibur is one of the greatest films ever. That ending never ceases to blow me away.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

The Exorcist is one of the most overrated movies in the history of cinema. Overrated is an overused term but in the case of The Exorcist, it is the correct term.

As a movie designed to scare, it's one of the most effective in the history of horror movies. I'm sure many would argue it is.
It certainly scared the crap out of me when I watched it. And it was primarily the build up in the first three quarters of the movie, not the spinning heads or floating girl.

 

[kedrell]

I've never seen the Exorcist and I never will. From what I was able to gather from just seeing the trailer(all I ever saw of it and all I needed to), it was one of those turning points where horror movies started thinking that it's not enough to scare you. Now they had to gross you out as well. I...HATE...THAT. I want to get a good fright, not lose my lunch.

 

[Figs]

I've never seen the Exorcist and I never will. From what I was able to gather from just seeing the trailer(all I ever saw of it and all I needed to), it was one of those turning points where horror movies started thinking that it's not enough to scare you. Now they had to gross you out as well. I...HATE...THAT. I want to get a good fright, not lose my lunch.

The gross factory isn't really bad. Aside from throwing up pea soup and stabbing herself with a crucifix repeatedly it's not that bad. As Uninspired Cup mentioned, the creepyness is all in the buildup to the actual exorcism. After that it's not necessarily focusing on the gross or disgusting but the two priests trying to get rid of the demon.

 

[kedrell]

The pea soup and just the disgusting way she looks from the trailer was enough for me. I'll stick to Legosi, Chaney, Karloff & Hitchcock films(or films that keep close enough to that type...like LMI) if I want a good fright.

 

[ALP]

When is this film coming out on DVD?

Probbaly got a long shot b/c it was just in theaters last month lol

But I did not get to see it

 

[Kurosawa]

Well, i first saw The Exorcist when i was 5...yea. Even now, I can't bring myself to sit down and re-watch it. There was a trailer for the anniversary blu-ray on the SPLICE dvd and I couldn't sit through it. I read a recent issue of Rue Morgue magazine that had an article on the film and I couldn't finish it because I could have sworn that the picture of Possessed Linda Blair was looking right at me. I can't watch the sequels either. It just...scares the hell out of me.

but yes, and I will swear this until the day I die, that Excalibur is one of the greatest films ever. That ending never ceases to blow me away.

The Exorcist was huge because it was an A picture with big stars and a lot of filmgoers who at the time would have never went to a horror movie went to it. The best part of the picture is the middle section when it forgets it's supposed to be so "significant", drops it's pretensions and behaves like an actual horror movie. But it's not scary, creepy or gross. It's well acted and nicely shot.

It might be scary to people who never watch horror films, but I have watched thousands of horror films from silent era to Universal, Val Lewton, Hammer, Roger Corman, Hershell Gordon Lewis, Omen and Exorcist, Halloween and it's many imitators, to the modern day, and to me the Exorcist is a big "so what?" Rosemary's Baby is creepier than the Exorcist to me.

So anyone who blasts Let Me In and worships something as overrated as the Exorcist is way off base, IMO.

 

[rashad]

Anchor Bay Home Entertainment has announced DVD ($29.98) and Blu-ray ($39.99) releases of Let Me In for February 1st. Extras will include an audio commentary with director Matt Reeves, featurettes ("From The Inside: A Look at the Making of Let Me In", "The Art of Special Effects"), unrated deleted scenes, a Car Crash Sequence Step-by-Step, trailers, and a poster gallery. The Blu-ray release will also include a Dissecting Let Me In feature, and a digital copy of the film.

 

[Rac]

EDIT: Ah lol Rashad was quicker.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

It might be scary to people who never watch horror films

Mark Kermode has a PhD in modern English and American horror fiction and has published several horror related books. He's considered an expert on the subject.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

That's fair. Lina was far more "ethereal".

I've actually seen discussions about Chloë Moretz (proper spelling, just for future reference) and whether or not she will be "hot". She's kinda awkward looking in a way.

I don't think it was just her but the way the character was portrayed.

To me this image Chloë Moretz is a good example, She looks cliche demonlike, a mix of Linda Blair in the exorcist and the little girl from (rec) or other examples of demonic little girls. Very Hollywoody.

In let the right one in, her vampire appearance more subtle. Even when her face starts gushing blood she still looks more natural. I believe (looking at her real life pictures) she had things put in her eyes to make them appear different but even then it's a subtle feral like paleness and when a few of a shots are focused purely on them making them more obvious, it's done with a depth of field giving it an otherworldly quality while not feeling like something ooga-booga, I'm a vampire, rar. Her Iranian (but pale in appearance) decent probably also helped. It's just, better.

 

[kedrell]

To me this image Chloë Moretz is a good example, She looks cliche demonlike, a mix of Linda Blair in the exorcist and the little girl from (rec) or other examples of demonic little girls. Very Hollywoody.

In let the right one in, her vampire appearance more subtle. Even when her face starts gushing blood she still looks more natural. I believe (looking at her real life pictures) she had things put in her eyes to make them appear different but even then it's a subtle feral like paleness and when a few of a shots are focused purely on them making them more obvious, it's done with a depth of field giving it an otherworldly quality while not feeling like something ooga-booga, I'm a vampire, rar. Her Iranian (but pale in appearance) decent probably also helped. It's just, better.

I agree with everything you said except this last part. I don't see either way being superior to the other.

 

[ALP]

Mark Kermode has a PhD in modern English and American horror fiction and has published several horror related books. He's considered an expert on the subject.

And Stephanie Meyers took several classes on the history of vampires in mythology, has two literature degrees, and wrote numerous Twilight books that have sold over 150 Million copies(how many has Kermode sold?).

If she is the definitive expert on vampires, god help us all

 

[JeetKuneDo]

To me this image Chloë Moretz is a good example, She looks cliche demonlike, a mix of Linda Blair in the exorcist and the little girl from (rec) or other examples of demonic little girls. Very Hollywoody.

We should use images from the movie for fairness. That DVD cover has undergone the photoshop treatment.

There are only two times when Abby looks "demonic". And that comes from the source material anyway. (In the book Eli grows claws and wings also) Can't pin that on LMI. And I don't see demonic as "automatically less good" myself. "More subtle" is also not the same as "better".

Here is a better representation of how Abby/Chloë looks in most of the movie:

The last pic is from a deleted scene. Chloë Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee are incredible in that scene. Reeves hated to cut it. Says something about him that he would cut such a great scene in the name of art.
See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsKk0A_vofQ

On the subject of "natural", I have to assume you had a huge problem with Alfredson deciding to replace Lina's voice with a woman's voice in LTROI? That's not "natural" and was an attempt to "Hollywood" it up. Surely you don't think it's ok to make a voice sound more demonic when you are so against that being done to a face.

 

[ALP]

I have to admit I prefer the look of the other kids. Blonde Oskar and androgynous boy-girl Eli. I suppose I'm just use to them. But those pictures are really nice. I can't wait to see this on blu-ray.

 

[zanos]

should I watch the foreign version or the american one first, or should I skip both and just read the book?

 

[CrimsonMist]

The Exorcist was huge because it was an A picture with big stars and a lot of filmgoers who at the time would have never went to a horror movie went to it. The best part of the picture is the middle section when it forgets it's supposed to be so "significant", drops it's pretensions and behaves like an actual horror movie. But it's not scary, creepy or gross. It's well acted and nicely shot.

It might be scary to people who never watch horror films, but I have watched thousands of horror films from silent era to Universal, Val Lewton, Hammer, Roger Corman, Hershell Gordon Lewis, Omen and Exorcist, Halloween and it's many imitators, to the modern day, and to me the Exorcist is a big "so what?" Rosemary's Baby is creepier than the Exorcist to me.

So anyone who blasts Let Me In and worships something as overrated as the Exorcist is way off base, IMO.

Well, I saw the Exorcist at an impressionable age and I haven't worked up the courage to sit back down and watch that film again. Such was the effect of that movie on me. I've been a horror junkie since i was atleast 3. Lugosi's Dracula scared the piss outta me, yet I continually go back to it. Murnau's Nosferatu(in one of it's many public domain forms with a nightmarish free-jazz score) scared the piss outta me and I continually go back to it. The Exorcist scared the bejeezus out of me and for the longest time, i REFUSED to go back to it. Now, it's just me being uncertain if I WANT to.

I thought it was incredibly atmospheric and creepy, and that's what really gave it the scare factor. Just this sense of unending, unseen dread that swallows you up. It wasn't, from what I recall, all that gross. And even now, just seeing picture of Linda Blair gives me the willies. I can't say that for Nosferau or The Omen or even Rosemary's Baby, which was good, but didn't paralyze me with pure terror.

But I will agree with your last statement. What makes it even more ridiculous is that Kermode doesn't even review Let Me In on it's own terms, or as an adaptation. And I still think it's ludacris that he hates John Boorman for somehow trashing The Exorcist by making a sequel to it. Because somehow, all of the power of the original doesn't exist anymore due to an inferior sequel. If anything, that just means the original isn't that good, then. By his logic, Joel Schumacher totally ruined Burton's Batman films. What a load.

Kermode may have a PHD in Modern English and American horror literature, and may be a revered film critic, but that doesn't mean **** at all. My film professor went to NYU, has a master's degree in film making. And you know what? Of the work of his I've seen, it sucks. At the end of the day, it's subjective opinion. Not factual.

 

[ALP]

And although I have not seen this new one yet, one thing that does bother me is that Matt Reeves was supposedly doing a closer to the book type thing yet from what I understand, he completely took away any mystery about Eli's gender. That is going further from the book. The book is specific that she is a he. The first film is ambiguous about it but this one completely avoids it...from what I have read.

 

[CrimsonMist]

should I watch the foreign version or the american one first, or should I skip both and just read the book?

Personally, i HATED the book. I thought it was very one note and not very engaging at all. As a friend of mine put it, it had all the nuance of a Goosebumps book, which basically means, it wasn't nuanced at all. It plodded on and on. The sub-plots were obnoxiously prolonged, and all the characters involved in them were annoying.

That's why I prefer the films. The original film does a good job at cutting to the chase, stripping the story down as much as it could be while still staying true. Of course, we still get those obnoxious bar people, but they're nowhere near as whiny as they are in the book. The original film cuts them out all together and replaces them with the detective from the novel. It's one of the reasons I prefer Let Me In as the superior adaptation, and therefore the superior film. It cut out some stuff I didn't like in the original or replaced them with better ideas(which, where it could be a bad thing, I think it worked to great effect here)

 

[CrimsonMist]

And although I have not seen this new one yet, one thing that does bother me is that Matt Reeves was supposedly doing a closer to the book type thing yet from what I understand, he completely took away any mystery about Eli's gender. That is going further from the book. The book is specific that she is a he. The first film is ambiguous about it but this one completely avoids it...from what I have read.

It made no difference to me, really. In the original film, I wouldn't even say it's ambiguous. It's a brief shot that doesn't really take the film anywhere and really ends up forgotten anyway.

 

[ALP]

But but but...Mr. Reeves stated that he was doing an adaptation to make something closer to the book. And that is apparently not the case.

How do you make something closer to the book by changing a major point of the character listed in the book, the locale, the time period, and all of the character's names?

 

[CrimsonMist]

But but but...Mr. Reeves stated that he was doing an adaptation to make something closer to the book. And that is apparently not the case.

How do you make something closer to the book by changing a major point of the character listed in the book, the locale, the time period, and all of the character's names?

The time period is the same. The locale is different for obvious reasons. The names didn't bug me too much. And regarding Eli's gender, I didn't care too much for it. It didn't really catch on for me. Again, I really hated the book. But Reeves' film is just as close to the spirit of the story as the original one in. And if you wanna take it that far, why didn't the author of the novel, who also wrote the original's screenplay, take the gender thing further?

 

[kickass]

I've never seen the Exorcist and I never will. From what I was able to gather from just seeing the trailer(all I ever saw of it and all I needed to), it was one of those turning points where horror movies started thinking that it's not enough to scare you. Now they had to gross you out as well. I...HATE...THAT. I want to get a good fright, not lose my lunch.

The Exorcist isn't about that. It was about a film that challenged the faith of a priest, and the strength of a mother. The "gore" inwhich you speak of compliments the fear factor and amazingly tight atmosphere of the film.

The Exorcist is an essential to any movie lover's collection. It is not only one of the best horror films, it is one of the best films, period.

End of.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

should I watch the foreign version or the american one first, or should I skip both and just read the book?

Not sure it matters. Some think they're more likely to like the one they saw first. That's probably true for most people. But I saw LTROI first and prefer LMI. (The acting is better imo) I think you can enjoy both if you like the story. I know I do.

And although I have not seen this new one yet, one thing that does bother me is that Matt Reeves was supposedly doing a closer to the book type thing yet from what I understand, he completely took away any mystery about Eli's gender. That is going further from the book. The book is specific that she is a he. The first film is ambiguous about it but this one completely avoids it...from what I have read.

Reeves wanted to go toward a "love story" more than a "friendship" like the book. He even strongly emphasizes Romeo and Juliet.

To be honest, the book and the two movies are three different versions of the characters. I might actually say the LMI characters are more different. The bullies are more like the novel in LMI. That was a big point for both Reeves and Lindgvist (both victims of bullies as children).

Personally, i HATED the book. I thought it was very one note and not very engaging at all. As a friend of mine put it, it had all the nuance of a Goosebumps book, which basically means, it wasn't nuanced at all. It plodded on and on. The sub-plots were obnoxiously prolonged, and all the characters involved in them were annoying.

That's why I prefer the films. The original film does a good job at cutting to the chase, stripping the story down as much as it could be while still staying true. Of course, we still get those obnoxious bar people, but they're nowhere near as whiny as they are in the book. The original film cuts them out all together and replaces them with the detective from the novel. It's one of the reasons I prefer Let Me In as the superior adaptation, and therefore the superior film. It cut out some stuff I didn't like in the original or replaced them with better ideas(which, where it could be a bad thing, I think it worked to great effect here)

I enjoyed the book a lot. There was some CREEPY stuff in there! And some of the writing was very poetic to me. Agree there was some extra stuff that the story does not miss. Definitely agree about the "bar people" going away in LMI. Didn't miss them at all.