I've only seen Exorcist II, which I thought was very enjoyable for all the "wrong" reasons. But have never even seen the first one, because over the years a number of people have told me it's only scary/not-boring if you were raised Catholic. Which I wasn't.
For some reason this group popped into my head not long ago as an example of a group that's really and profoundly been forgotten about, like say, I don't know Morphine. But it also struck me, about 20yrs after the fact that their name is a double entendre on mutual cop-killing but also the Sisyphean round of a junkie's life. I *think* that's intentional.
Yeah i believe that the double meaning was intentionally there.i like the way they popped into your head only to make you acknowledge how profoundly theyd been forgotten! i have to say i am still a big fan, first album especially...Exorcist 1 is bloodly terrifying even if your not a catholic and three is the "true" sequel....george c scott, always a winner...plus you can remind yourself how much brad douriff looks like david graeber
Didn't Paul Schrader make the 'real' Exorcist III years later? As for the first one, I thought it was only scary if you were frightened of (a) Catholic priests, or (b) teenage girls... it has it's moments, but it's got nothing on Rosemary's Baby!
I figure I need to see Rosemary's Baby, as well -- if not first. I didn't bother previously because I had a film instructor in college (who was raised in a repressively religious household in Flint, MI) who just shrugged it off with the dismissal: "Old people naked...now that's scary."But I paid my own dues as far as repressive religious environments went. I suppose the reason the faith never "took" was because I found Satan was pretty corny, too. Sorry for the digressives.
Post a Comment