Reply With Quote
They are both classics for very different reasons.
Someone mentioned this as a great movie but I don't know if they mentioned which version. I'm assuming it's the one NOT with Nicholas Cage. Are they both good?
They are both classics for very different reasons.
Is the Cage one a classic because it's so bad? Will watching one ruin the other?
The first. The second is trash.
The first is a solid entry in (film history.) The undercurrent of evil, true evil is astounding. The man is so ed from the initial frame on forward that upon retrospection it's heartrending. Lee is perfection. Woodward is above that same station. Ekland is a pleasant surprise as the production does not tease us with her, they just present her. It is here that we see the true goodness of the Woodward character.
I've watched this 3 times. I will go to my grave never watching it again. It is too painful, too tight, too much.
So I finally watched this yesterday. The 70's version. Not real sure what to make of it. I wish I would have seen it about 20 years ago before I'd heard all the stories about Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, etc. It took away some of the surprise because it's been referenced so much.
Probably a very solid melo dramatic film when it first came out. I'm wondering where and how it was shown due to a couple of the scenes.
I actually was on the verge of hating it until they tied it up with a neat tragic bow at the end. I think the IMDB ratings of around 7 are right for me.
Had I been in Woodward's shoes, I don't think I could have abstained from Ekland the first night. Which may have gone on to save my life.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
