#3 2009-08-23 14:12:19
Scotty wrote:
March 13, 2009
My god did the original suck balls.
Oh, good lord, it sucked balls, and not in a nice way. The sheer reliance on coincidence and the various gaping plot contrivances really weakened the whole thing. David Hess was pretty hot, though.
Offline
#4 2009-08-23 17:33:57
I like it [Craven's version]. It was not quite like anything viewed prior [1972].
Plus analog baby.
Offline
#5 2009-08-23 21:29:50
MSG Tripps wrote:
I like it [Craven's version]. It was not quite like anything viewed prior [1972].
Plus analog baby.
I agree; it was quite different for the era. For that reason, it was pretty interesting, and while it had a lot of story-line problems, I enjoyed watching it although I didn't care for it. It won't make my list of movies-to-see-again but I'd been curious about it for a while. I also hadn't realized until watching it last night it was a Wes Craven flick, and his first, at that.
I was reading the plot synopsis for the remake and it looks as if they attempted to tie up a lot of the dangling ends for the new version.
Offline
#6 2009-08-23 21:41:01
Hey Taint.
A while ago, an excerpt of an interview with Craven was post where he explained some of the problems of getting this film out.
Offline
#7 2009-08-24 00:02:07
It has the scariest blowjob I didn't see, to this day.
Last edited by MSG Tripps (2009-08-24 00:41:32)
Offline
#8 2009-08-24 01:51:05
MSG Tripps wrote:
It has the scariest blowjob I didn't see, to this day.
I saw in an interview (where I first learned about the movie) the actress who, um, performed the blowjob wanted it to be as realistic as possible, so they attached a piece of meat to the guy's body which she then bit into and ripped off.
Looking pretty convincing to me.
Offline
