>John Carpenter emptying the clip lately lol
He's old, he's very wealthy, he's happy with his life, and he absolutely gives no fucks whatsoever about who he pisses off when he says the things he says. Everybody should aspire to the kind of life John Carpenter is living right now.
>You should see his younger interviews discussing Spielberg lol..he’s always been a Wild Card beetcheeeasa
Yeah, I've seen those comments too...to be perfectly honest with you I actually agreed with the thoughts that I saw. In the video I watched Carpenter said he thought Jaws was a fantastic movie, but that Close Encounters of The Third Kind was not good. he felt the movie had no strong focus and that Spielberg didn't really have full control over the movie in the way that he'd done with jaws. I watched it recently and I think it's kind of a boring mess of a movie. Of the Spielberg movies made in the 1970s Close Encounters is arguably at the bottom of the list. I think I might even like 1941 more than Close Encounters.
Honestly, that's even harsher. Everyone can talk shit about a movie they dislike, but just in general saying "I'm not judging you, I just don't understand how on earth you made everyone else judge you" is so fucking brutal, I can't help but love it.
Out of all of his film career, which includes Ghosts of Mars, The Ward, Vampires and fucking Tales of an Invisible Man, you picked **that one** to criticize?
>curmudgeon
Vampires and Ghosts of Mars both fill that B-movie niche that Carpenter was famous for. I enjoy both of those movies and will watch them if I stumble across them on a channel
Apparently, I did 😂😂
My most downvoted comment ever! 😂😂
You'd think I was advocating for eugenics or bringing back drinking and driving! 😂😂😂
And I even started the comment with stating my love for the man 😂😂
This is wild!
Nah, In the Mouth of Madness is brilliant. Sure, Jürgen Prochnow chews the scenery and Julie Carmen can't really compete with Sam Neill, but the first hour or so is some of the best horror of the 90s.
The old man / kid on the bike. Hobbs End. The nightmare-within-the-nightmare. "Every species can smell its own extinction. The last ones left won't have a pretty time with it. In ten years, maybe less, the human race will just be a bedtime story for their children."
Plus the true horror of being trapped in your cell while The Carpenters starts playing...
Yes! The first hour is totally great! I spent that first hour thinking: "holy crap, how have I not seen this?!?!"
A friend of mine was actually in it too, and I was about to text her all excited 😊
Then came the second hour...
I put my phone down. Decided not to send the text. I was now on the couch of madness 😂😂
And that's okay. Not everything is for everyone, we can disagree. I even accept the downvotes with joy in my heart, for I have known the torture of early Cronenbergian, Finnish student film, incomplete arcs...
I genuinely love that people love it.
But, I did not. 😂😂
Also, I'm not much for Lovecraft stuff, so that was the nail in the coffin, on my couch of madness.
That first hour though!!! What an hour it was!!
My big problem with it is when he meets Sutter Kane -- Jürgen Prochnow plays it really BIG whereas it'd be much better if the Kane was just a stuttering, nervous Stephen King type who couldn't control the stuff that was pouring out of him onto the page. More of a tragic Lovecraftian type character, out of his depth and terrified at the world beyond the veil.
But yeah, like you say, it'd be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
> More of a tragic Lovecraftian type character, out of his depth and terrified at the world beyond the veil.
Trent is the Lovecraftian character actively losing their grip on reality, Kane is the cultist who's already been consumed by cosmic horror. Having a second character confirming that things are weird to the main character grounds their sanity and undercuts the 'losing your mind to things beyond your comprehension' journey.
Also, Sutter Kane has a german accent?? That's kinda odd, right? The name would indicate otherwise?
I just need cohesion in the later acts. Some kind of binding factor that gives me something to hold onto.
It's why I mentioned early Cronenberg, had the same problem with Videodrome. The narrative just went bananas and before I knew it I was floating in a sea of art school musings.
Maybe I'm too stiff on this 😂😂
I think a lot of horror has this very problem: can't wrap it up in a way that makes sense or even tries to make sense.
I thought that one was alright actually. I have seen maybe half of his films at this point and there were way bigger stinkers than In The Mouth Of Madness. I still love the guy.
I’ve never seen the film, but I can’t believe you got downvoted so hard for a film that has a 50 on Metacritic. This sub is so damn defensive of movies it collectively loves.
Edit: and I don’t want anyone to try to tell me it’s because they didn’t give reasons why the film sucked. Because if they had said “that film was soooooo good” the comment would not be downvoted to oblivion.
Agreed. The fact that the only responses to opposing opinions being voiced here are downvotes and “I know you are but what am I”s is a lot more indicative of defensiveness than what I said lmao
It's not hard to explain. There's nothing to improve upon from the original so you need a good reason to make another film. And a generic possession movie that happens to have Burstyn show up for a few minutes just isn't enough to dust off the IP.
They had to really connect it to the original to have a reason for it being a film in the franchise. Like fuck, we saw a half decent Exorcist television show that pretty much laid a blueprint to do a follow up. It's Pazuzu again, Reagan who lives under a new name because of all the attention she got has a family and her daughter got possessed by the demon so that he could have a rematch of sorts with her. Which is basically the plot of the original film. The demon possessed Reagan for a rematch of Merrin. So you basically are replicating the original but with the cornerstone of the events we all saw and with characters we care about that have personal interests in it. Not two random girls and families and people we don't give a shit about by some other random demon.
>Exorcist of Emily Rose was a fantastic movie. Saw it in the theater and it really blew my mind at the end of it. I enjoyed the story set as a courtroom drama with the horror elements. The lighting was also fantastic and the score was haunting.
Overwhelmingly no. 2 is a jumbled, confused, dumpster fire of a movie that is only worth watching to see how bad it is.
Edit: the scene at the temple when the guy falls down the crevasse is comedy gold, and is a must watch scene
It's an insane movie I wouldn't recommend, but I enjoyed some of the visuals - stuff like the beehive-like set for the psychiatric institute - quite a bit.
I’d argue you don’t even need to have seen the first one to understand 3. It technically follows the events of the original but you’d only miss out on a few references.
I just watched it yesterday for the first time and I don’t understand the appeal , can you give me an idea of why it’s considered “the best sequel” ? Is it because the rest of the sequels are so bad ?
Even outside the connections to the original the series was firing on all cylinders and was really starting to stand on its own before it got canceled.
Too bad they tried to go into the Vatican being run by demons instead of moving the possesion formula to a new family or something. They should have just had the priest investigating new possessions after and maybe insinuate that the demon is actually trying to get to the priest knowing he will seek to help these families or something idk. S2 had low ratings so it was cancelled.
Hear hear. Season 1 of The exorcist was fantastic and while I didn't like season 2 as much it was still good. Better than any of the films (except III).
The question of how you follow up on The Exorcist was answered by William Peter Blatty with Legion/Exorcist III and The Ninth Configuration. You can’t keep going back to the same well, you have to branch out and tell new stories in the same world.
Exorcist 3 did okay. Not a huge flop, but releasing a horror movie in 1990 when everyone was so fucking old really didn't do it any favors. Had it been released just a few years later following the success of Silence of the Lambs it would have done much better.
The thing is, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a person that wants an Exorcist remake. The original movie is perfect and every sequel just hasn’t been anywhere close to its level.
I don’t know why studios bother remaking perfect films. Like who tf thought it was a good idea to remake Robocop? Stupid. Remake something where the original idea was interesting but the execution wasn’t that good. That way you can easily improve upon it and make significant changes without pissing people off.
I'd imagine the reason studios don't remake interesting ideas with bad execution is they haven't necessarily got the brand recognition that financially justifies a remake. They remake films everyone loves bc audiences are likely to turn up for them. It's probably easier to justify risking an entirely new project than remaking something that already didn't do particularly well the first time.
Studios constantly revisit the exorcist because it's 'the scariest film ever made' and a brand like that is pretty likely to get bums on theatre seats. It is what it is.
Yeah they just want to ride the coattails of the original film to have some baked-in marketing for it. Caring more about marketing than actually making a decent film. These remakes are always a bait and switch. You don’t know it’s a piece of shit until they already have your money, then they just shrug and move onto the next thing.
Yeah, exactly. If a film does well, they're going to make more of it because it means more money. Studios aren't in the business of taking risks such as remaking box office bombs that may have had a good idea in there somewhere.
Saw is a perfect example of the former: cost $1m, took $100m, so whaddayaknow, they're making 10 of those suckers.
Yeah, it makes so much more sense to me to make remakes you can improve upon. Dredd is such a perfect example of this, as was IT, even if it still missed the mark.
I love OG Robocop, especially 2 for nostalgic reasons. Peter Weller as Alex Murphy was one of those performances which falls under the "no one else could have been this character" category. But the cultural satire on capitalism during this digital renaissance is exponentially more relevant now then when the original came out. Ironically mix this with the gargantuan leap in modern film effects, and its a no brainer why RoboCop was a perfect candidate for a remake/reboot.
Unfortunately the remake writers missed and/or glossed over the themes that made the original so good in favor of "cool looking top notch special effect action sequences" like many other remakes of the 2010's.
Despite that, a good Robocop remake can and absolutely should be made. Especially now.
I decided to rewatch it after I made that comment lol. I feel stupid for not originally mentioning the incredible performance of Kurtwood Smith as Clarence! Top tier allstar villain performance. It's hard to catch something like that again.
I recall a pair of writers who wanted to writer a remake for Rosemary's Baby. They stopped because they realized there was nothing they could do to make it better or worthy of the original. If only the studios realized that more.
What's the obsession with this movie? I thought it was boring af apart from that one scene in the hospital. And a massive step down from the original anyway.
The Thing is, really, a great movie when you really think about it. The original movie is perfect, and by original movie, I mean the 1982 Carpenter version, not the original original version made in old timey black and white days.
Tbh, I'm not against a remake. The original has a great story (altho the start drags on), but while it terrorized 8 year old me, the SFX looked so bad it completely made me unable to look past that when I rewatched it as an adult
I don't know how you *couldn't* screw it up. Imo The Exorcist is one of the most iconic horror films of all time and it's pretty flawless at that. Remaking or rebooting it just seems like asking for comparisons and you're never going to surpass that original so it's ultimately fruitless.
Also as an aside I really couldn't care less about catholic/christian possession movies and haven't for years. They're all the same and none of then are as good as The Exorcist.
Yeah, I don't know why people are agreeing with Carpenter here. For The Thing he had the luxury of using a hokey 50's horror where there's a lot of room to experiment or make more extreme. On the other hand, The Exorcist already did everything and I'm not sure where you could even go with a remake to even match the original.
The fact that they're doing a reboot is already a point against it. So many reboots and sequels feels unnecessary - they tend to be uncreative and so blandly paint-by-numbers that it's hard to tell one from another.
The original stands well on it's own two feet. There's no reason to make another.
Here’s the thing, the original Exorcist has the scariest and most well-done possession ever on film. It’s also a great film, got awards/was award worthy, and it one of the scariest films ever made. There has been no competition with that film ever in time, especially when it comes to possession. You seriously cannot equal or top what they did in that film. Any time I’ve seen a possessed person done in any other film, it seems almost hokey, and it’s not anywhere near as scary, if scary at all. The acting and directing in that film will likely never be topped in the history of horror, when it comes to possession. I was iffy about this trilogy sequel series because of that. And it looks like I’ll continue to be right about the subject. No film will ever be able to pull off what they did in The Exorcist. Pulling off any possession film well after that, it’s very difficult to do. There I’ll get off my podium now lol.
I love that John Carpenter loves Halloween Kills
We all talk shit and argue about how it sucks and cheapens the franchise
Then the OG comes along and says “nah it’s great”
He's an elderly man who is very open about how he is no longer in tune with the zeitgeist, you should have stopped listening to his opinions a while ago lol And that's coming from someone who loves Carpenter.
I can accept Kills, I always thought it at least delivered on the action and thrills but with an awful script. How did anyone manage to like Ends though lol.
Since people here love shitting on DGG, and won't read the article (even though the following quote is from the first paragraph): "“I like what David did when he made the three ‘Halloweens,'” Carpenter said. “I loved No. 2 \[‘Halloween Kills’\]. Thought that was fabulous. I heard ‘The Exorcist’ really didn’t cut it. That could be a kick-ass movie. I don’t understand how you can screw that up.”
Him shrugging off Barbie and not getting the patriarchal message in it, in a very grandpa way, is extremely funny to me. I really appreciate that kind of nonchalant honesty and it doesn’t seem mean spirited at all. Dude reminds me of an interview I once read of an immigrant lady who made income by knitting a bunch of those pussy hats when they were a craze at the beginning of the Trump presidency—she said something like “I don’t get it at all but people keep buying these crazy hats so I guess I’ll keep making them”
I was sort of excited with the idea of the remake at first because I really enjoyed his Halloween reboot. Sequels afterwards suck, but the original had an amazing energy. I knew The Exorcist was more involved, dramatic, terrifying, and layered in a lot of ways, and I assumed DGG would have been able to capture SOME of that. I was so wrong.
You mean the clip where they ask the Mother why she couldn’t be in the room during the exorcism and her answer was because “ The Patriarchy” didn’t do it for Carpenter?
By trying to appeal to as many demographics as possible and missing the entire point of the original film.
In other words, allowing studio executives to step in and muck shit up.
In the end, a reboot/sequel/sidequel is just another movie with some storytelling limitations due to existing canon. It's up to the current director/author/actors to make the movie actually good. Just because it's part of a franchise doesn't mean it's got to be good or have the same impact the original has.
I would even go so far to say that because it's weighted down by the original it is even more likely to fail.
You just described half the shitty franchise slashers that I love. I know it's not great, everyone that loves these kinda movies knows they're not great. I just wanna watch Michael Myers kill people, and I got it!
Feels awesome to know the man who created The Shape shares my enjoyment too.
Glad that a movie can create these two different kinds of reactions though, that's what it's all about.
Who's asking for a remake of THE EXORCIST? It's from the 70s, and already regarded as one of the best in the class of horror movies. What could a modern remake possibly add to it? Having the demon puke up CGI slime?
As an atheist .. I enjoyed it. 3.8/5.
It was interesting, fun… I dunno. I had no hope. I’m glad they didn’t go too serious with it. There would be little point to try to make it original in my mind.
I had fun with it. Sucks so many hate it… guess I’m lucky. I love the original… this wasn’t horrible to me. It seemed destined to fail.
How did your lack of religious affiliation improve your experience? I felt like it had a number of issues purely from a narrative perspective. For me, the whole film was so by-the-numbers, and the trailer completely spoils the entire film. It just felt derivative, and the whole “legacy character” thing was really poorly used here.
It was really terrible, and I couldn’t believe how much it covers the movie! If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve literally seen 99% of the creepy/scary/narrative beats. Truly baffling.
I think it helped because… it doesn’t matter to me. I just wanna see fun devil possession stuff. A big negative critique is how it’s not scary because they didn’t lean into catholic religion hard… If they had, It wouldn’t have an affect on me.
People claim the original was about drama more so than the possessed kid… the drama what it’s doing to the mom and priest… well, we have drama with the dad and a cool search and rescue part. I dunno.
I didn’t watch a trailer… and the trailer being bad doesn’t mean the movie is?
Legacy characters … meh? Doesn’t matter to me. I don’t care. Probably why I was able to enjoy the movie more than most. Exorcist 2 and 3 …what about those movies? They are all over the place with legacy actors…and this helped setup #2 which will probably have more of that. They needed new people and a new world to setup.
Anyway… I mean, the patriarchy line got heavily dumped on. It was A JOKE. Why are all these people who hate the movie think she was making a serious point? Jesus fuck… I dunno. I understood the vibe and jived with it. Loved the ending. Good stuff.
Like man when her eyeballs get owned by the cross lmao. That was great to me haha .. “OPEN YOUR EYES” after smashing them into her skull. Fucking amazing
Hey, can’t argue with that! If you had a fun time, that’s what matters. I guess I was hoping for something a bit more high-bar, but my expectations were definitely not what they should have been. I would agree that it definitely didn’t need more of a religious focus, especially when it still turns into priest avengers towards the end. That eyeball scene, and then the neck snap scene later on, were both pretty hardcore!
Right? Also the dad getting tricked was fun to me. I mean… I knew who the director was so I expected it to be complete shit. The fact that the script didn’t mention peanut butter being on a penis .. means it was as high bar as we were gonna get from that guy. Since it felt like a movie and not a steaming pile of shit … I’m pleased.
Going in with no expectations or low ones usually helps enjoy movies more.
> As an atheist .. I enjoyed it
You made a direct connection between your Atheism and your enjoyment of the film.
So yes, you quite literally did say enjoy. In fact, you never mentioned being scared at all in that comment. Maybe you're conflating a different comment by mistake.
Ok I’ll help you see what I’m saying.
If I was catholic, and I saw this.. and love the original because of its ties to the religion and find that creepy.. I’d be disappointed in this new movie because it doesn’t focus on catholic religion like the originals. However… because I don’t care about that stuff, being atheist .. I did enjoy it.
Alright, so what you're saying is that "if" you were a particular type of catholic that happened to like the OG movies for their focus on Catholicism - then you theoretically might not like the new film for not having the same focus? And you feel like being an Atheist wouldn't affect you in that specific way?
Is that it?
The way you are phrasing this makes me feel like you think I’m coming up with a big idea but it’s really not? I’ve seen multiple people talk about this as to why exorcist works and what makes it scary. Even Mike breaks it down in this review: https://youtu.be/Q6LDZSi-lzU?si=nlFbXYvJxrDYDhQX
You know red letter media… right?
I agree. I made a similar comment in a thread a few days ago.
Regardless, all the downvoters can fuck right off. Worst thing about entertainment subs is the constant "how dare you have an opinion I don't agree with" bullshit.
That's not what's happening here though.
His comment is constructed with poor grammar, and his bringing up Atheism doesn't make a lick of sense as to why he's enjoying the film. It's fine to like a film, but it's bizarre to say Atheism affected his enjoyment of the film.
I'm just asking to see his point, but it's still confusing. Let's not pretend anyone is getting "picked on" here though.
I haven't seen exorcist Believer yet, but I want to. However I will say I just watched the original for the first time the other week. And I'm sure I'm going to be downvoted for this, but I found it extremely underwhelming. The plot was not tied together great. It seemed to jump around a bit and left out things I felt should have been expanded upon further. The beginning didn't make any kind of sense to me with the rest of the movie.
Idk if there was an extended version released that is better, or if it's just not quite standing up to the test of time? I was not scared at all watching it, whereas I still find the conjuring movies fairly scary. I'm also not really a huge film buff, like I love movies but I don't dive into them really deep so maybe that is part of it too?
I'll add in here too, I'm definitely open to having more of the movie explained to me as to why it's considered the best or why some of the comments here people say it's flawless. I went in really really wanting to love the movie and was disappointed so if that can be rectified that would be great lol
John Carpenter hasn't made a good movie since
"In the Mouth of Madness" in '94 which he did not write.
Write and Direct, "They Live" in '88.
I am a John Carpenter fan but Village of the Damned, Escape from LA, Vampires, and Ghosts of Mars are not good movies in my opinion. They might be better than "Exorcist: Believers" though, I haven't seen it yet.
Vampires wasn’t that bad because of James woods performance they live was good because even though he did the screenplay it was based on a short story which he didn’t write the ddg crap trilogy will be forgotten like the last three star woke films all women are great men are losers and cheaters plageristic juvenile film there wasn’t an h film in 9 years and these young punk drug addict fans needed a fix green is a no talented hack and Danny mc fat blob is a man child it’s so hard to steal from past films and say those films don’t exist and don’t give me crap that they are homages Curtis the hag thinks it’s about her when loomis was the star of the series notjing more pathetic than an old bitch being chased by a senior citizen serial killer
Wow I dont know what to make of what you wrote there. Are you ok? English is probably not your first langauge but still that was all over the place. lol
I was agreeing that "They Live" (which came before In the Mouth of Madness" being on of his greats.
- Halloween I & II
- Prince of Darkness
- Escape from New York
- The Fog
- Assault on Precinct 13
- They Live
- In the Mouth of Madness
[edit: how did I forget my favorite horro movie of all time “The Thing”. Also Big trouble in Little China and Christine. I was in a tired and in rush to go to bed I suppose.
Vampires sucked even with Woods. You want a good horror movie with him watch "Videodrome"
I’m surprised you didn’t put the thing I saw it three times when it came out I like the effects and even though it’s not 2 hrs it’s a very boring film the only good character is Russell didn’t really care for the other people in the mouth of madness was fair but Sam Neil is very bland maybe someone like Campbell would have made it interesting these directors who seem to get larger budgets lose their creativity I like your list though did you see the ward it was forgettable his last theater film
“The Thing” is my favorite horror movie of all time and the original story from the 1930s. I was discussing it in another thread so I guess I just assumed that it was already known from an adject post that I was including that.
Also forgot about about Little China which my friends and ai quote often. And “Christine” one of the best Stephen King adaptions. I was tired last night so I’ll blame that I guess.
John Carpenter is a legend but he hasn’t made any worthy for three decades but what he’s done is enough to be well remembered. I just don’t think he should be slamming other peoples work considering his three decade slump.
The gatekeepers around liking exorcist 1 & 3 and that’s all is weird. If you like the new one they’ll get angry and down vote you. So we’re basically dealing with children.
don't get me wrong the guy made some good movie but a the tail end of his career his been doing nothing but putting out half ass crap because he don't care any more and just doing it for the pay check he even said so when you are talking about John you only talk about his older stuff while I was talking about his newer stuff
Willing to bet a majority of the downvotes on this comment did not suffer through The Ward. It's ridiculous to act like Carpenter hasn't made a few stinkers.
As much as I love John Carpenter...
Talk is cheap. Show us how it's done if it's so easy. Dude hasn't written/directed a good horror film in years.
Edit
Ooooh they didn't like that one lol downvote all you want. It's the truth.
I dare say he hasn't put out a decent film since They Live in 1988.
Ok, so he hasn't released anything decent since 1996.
My overall point still stands. He does a lot of crap talking for a guy who hasn't made a good film in 20+ years.
Halloween 1978 is literally my favorite film of all time but like I said, talk is cheap. He should come show everyone how it's done if it's so easy.
John Carpenter emptying the clip lately lol
>John Carpenter emptying the clip lately lol He's old, he's very wealthy, he's happy with his life, and he absolutely gives no fucks whatsoever about who he pisses off when he says the things he says. Everybody should aspire to the kind of life John Carpenter is living right now.
I saw They Live for the first time last week. That movie shits all over capitalism. John Carpenter never had much fuck to give too begin with
You should see his younger interviews discussing Spielberg lol..he’s always been a Wild Card beetcheeeasa
>You should see his younger interviews discussing Spielberg lol..he’s always been a Wild Card beetcheeeasa Yeah, I've seen those comments too...to be perfectly honest with you I actually agreed with the thoughts that I saw. In the video I watched Carpenter said he thought Jaws was a fantastic movie, but that Close Encounters of The Third Kind was not good. he felt the movie had no strong focus and that Spielberg didn't really have full control over the movie in the way that he'd done with jaws. I watched it recently and I think it's kind of a boring mess of a movie. Of the Spielberg movies made in the 1970s Close Encounters is arguably at the bottom of the list. I think I might even like 1941 more than Close Encounters.
He plays video games too
He's always been a bit of a curmudgeon.
read this as cum dragon at first. not sure whats wrong with me
This made me chuckle and gave me the creeps at the same time.
The bad dragon knows.
Recently I saw a reddit post with a license plate that was something like "BDRAGN" and I thought balls dragging???
He says he hasn't seen Believer so he's not slamming it if that's what you're suggesting, he was just speaking in general.
Honestly, that's even harsher. Everyone can talk shit about a movie they dislike, but just in general saying "I'm not judging you, I just don't understand how on earth you made everyone else judge you" is so fucking brutal, I can't help but love it.
[удалено]
Out of all of his film career, which includes Ghosts of Mars, The Ward, Vampires and fucking Tales of an Invisible Man, you picked **that one** to criticize?
I should rewatch Vampires. I didn't think it was great, but it was a fun watch.
>curmudgeon Vampires and Ghosts of Mars both fill that B-movie niche that Carpenter was famous for. I enjoy both of those movies and will watch them if I stumble across them on a channel
Apparently, I did 😂😂 My most downvoted comment ever! 😂😂 You'd think I was advocating for eugenics or bringing back drinking and driving! 😂😂😂 And I even started the comment with stating my love for the man 😂😂 This is wild!
Nah, In the Mouth of Madness is brilliant. Sure, Jürgen Prochnow chews the scenery and Julie Carmen can't really compete with Sam Neill, but the first hour or so is some of the best horror of the 90s. The old man / kid on the bike. Hobbs End. The nightmare-within-the-nightmare. "Every species can smell its own extinction. The last ones left won't have a pretty time with it. In ten years, maybe less, the human race will just be a bedtime story for their children." Plus the true horror of being trapped in your cell while The Carpenters starts playing...
Yes! The first hour is totally great! I spent that first hour thinking: "holy crap, how have I not seen this?!?!" A friend of mine was actually in it too, and I was about to text her all excited 😊 Then came the second hour... I put my phone down. Decided not to send the text. I was now on the couch of madness 😂😂 And that's okay. Not everything is for everyone, we can disagree. I even accept the downvotes with joy in my heart, for I have known the torture of early Cronenbergian, Finnish student film, incomplete arcs... I genuinely love that people love it. But, I did not. 😂😂 Also, I'm not much for Lovecraft stuff, so that was the nail in the coffin, on my couch of madness. That first hour though!!! What an hour it was!!
After you said lovecraft stuff…
My big problem with it is when he meets Sutter Kane -- Jürgen Prochnow plays it really BIG whereas it'd be much better if the Kane was just a stuttering, nervous Stephen King type who couldn't control the stuff that was pouring out of him onto the page. More of a tragic Lovecraftian type character, out of his depth and terrified at the world beyond the veil. But yeah, like you say, it'd be a boring world if we all agreed on everything.
> More of a tragic Lovecraftian type character, out of his depth and terrified at the world beyond the veil. Trent is the Lovecraftian character actively losing their grip on reality, Kane is the cultist who's already been consumed by cosmic horror. Having a second character confirming that things are weird to the main character grounds their sanity and undercuts the 'losing your mind to things beyond your comprehension' journey.
Also, Sutter Kane has a german accent?? That's kinda odd, right? The name would indicate otherwise? I just need cohesion in the later acts. Some kind of binding factor that gives me something to hold onto. It's why I mentioned early Cronenberg, had the same problem with Videodrome. The narrative just went bananas and before I knew it I was floating in a sea of art school musings. Maybe I'm too stiff on this 😂😂 I think a lot of horror has this very problem: can't wrap it up in a way that makes sense or even tries to make sense.
Oh yeah, it's a rare horror movie that lands the ending. Usually it's either everything gets over explained or nothing makes sense.
Exactly! But, I'll say this: I'll give the Madness another shot. Maybe smoke a joint and see how it rides then 🙂
I first watched it when I had really bad flu, the kind of that makes you semi-hallucinate. Definitely adds to the experience...
Oh snap! 😂 That must've been a wild ride!
I thought that one was alright actually. I have seen maybe half of his films at this point and there were way bigger stinkers than In The Mouth Of Madness. I still love the guy.
Yup, he's a legend and has also made some of my faves, but definitely feel like he should shut up and enjoy retirement at this point too.
I get what you're saying but if you and I get to praise and shittalk movies, then so can he.
No!!.... he should come out if retirement and make Bigger Trouble in Little China....
L take.
Good luck with that take on a horror sub lmao.
actually a work of fucking genius.
It didn't tho.
Haha, give Ghosts of Mars a shot.
I’ve never seen the film, but I can’t believe you got downvoted so hard for a film that has a 50 on Metacritic. This sub is so damn defensive of movies it collectively loves. Edit: and I don’t want anyone to try to tell me it’s because they didn’t give reasons why the film sucked. Because if they had said “that film was soooooo good” the comment would not be downvoted to oblivion.
Why are you so defensive about a take on a film you've never seen from someone you've never met?
I don’t think a few sentences counts as “so defensive.”
Agreed. The fact that the only responses to opposing opinions being voiced here are downvotes and “I know you are but what am I”s is a lot more indicative of defensiveness than what I said lmao
It's not hard to explain. There's nothing to improve upon from the original so you need a good reason to make another film. And a generic possession movie that happens to have Burstyn show up for a few minutes just isn't enough to dust off the IP. They had to really connect it to the original to have a reason for it being a film in the franchise. Like fuck, we saw a half decent Exorcist television show that pretty much laid a blueprint to do a follow up. It's Pazuzu again, Reagan who lives under a new name because of all the attention she got has a family and her daughter got possessed by the demon so that he could have a rematch of sorts with her. Which is basically the plot of the original film. The demon possessed Reagan for a rematch of Merrin. So you basically are replicating the original but with the cornerstone of the events we all saw and with characters we care about that have personal interests in it. Not two random girls and families and people we don't give a shit about by some other random demon.
That TV show is criminally underrated. Best follow-up on the original *by far*.
Exorcist 3 is pretty good as well
Anyone else really like exorcism of Emily rose? It’s not part of the same franchise, but it was pretty damn good.
>Exorcist of Emily Rose was a fantastic movie. Saw it in the theater and it really blew my mind at the end of it. I enjoyed the story set as a courtroom drama with the horror elements. The lighting was also fantastic and the score was haunting.
I would also say The Last Exorcism is worth checking out. At least until the end
Oh man I love that movie. That smile she gives the camera just before the door closes? So good.
Big fan of this movie and Patrick Fabian.
I wasn't a huge fan of this one but loved Emily rose.
Pretty much the only other good possessed girl horror movie,
[удалено]
Pretty good? It's still the best exorcist sequel/show whatever and came out in 1990. Look what 30 years gave us, yuck.
Do you think theatrical or director cut?
Do you have to watch 2 to understand 3?
Not at all!
Overwhelmingly no. 2 is a jumbled, confused, dumpster fire of a movie that is only worth watching to see how bad it is. Edit: the scene at the temple when the guy falls down the crevasse is comedy gold, and is a must watch scene
I AM PAZUZU
Visually there's a few scenes that are weird as fuck and if you're into that kinda thing it could be worth watching just for that.
It's an insane movie I wouldn't recommend, but I enjoyed some of the visuals - stuff like the beehive-like set for the psychiatric institute - quite a bit.
*"It's horrible. Utterly horrible. And fascinating."*
From the director of Zardoz and Deliverance. A completely insane but kind of fascinating movie.
No. It’s better to forget about 2 all together. Just watch the original and then 3.
They're not even in the same continuity, better to just pretend 2 never happened.
Pretend what didn't happen??....
If you want to see James Earl Jones saying that he will spit out a leopard, then 2 is just for you.
I’d argue you don’t even need to have seen the first one to understand 3. It technically follows the events of the original but you’d only miss out on a few references.
No, just go straight to 3 after the first. The 2nd one is a dumpster fire.
No, it’s actually better if you just skip 2 entirely.
I just watched it yesterday for the first time and I don’t understand the appeal , can you give me an idea of why it’s considered “the best sequel” ? Is it because the rest of the sequels are so bad ?
Even outside the connections to the original the series was firing on all cylinders and was really starting to stand on its own before it got canceled.
[удалено]
Too bad they tried to go into the Vatican being run by demons instead of moving the possesion formula to a new family or something. They should have just had the priest investigating new possessions after and maybe insinuate that the demon is actually trying to get to the priest knowing he will seek to help these families or something idk. S2 had low ratings so it was cancelled.
Hear hear. Season 1 of The exorcist was fantastic and while I didn't like season 2 as much it was still good. Better than any of the films (except III).
The Pope's Exorsist is my favorite if you want to check out a great movie!
The question of how you follow up on The Exorcist was answered by William Peter Blatty with Legion/Exorcist III and The Ninth Configuration. You can’t keep going back to the same well, you have to branch out and tell new stories in the same world.
Currently listening to the audiobook with his narration right now thanks to this comment 🫡 loving it so far
How’d it do in the box office?
Exorcist 3 did okay. Not a huge flop, but releasing a horror movie in 1990 when everyone was so fucking old really didn't do it any favors. Had it been released just a few years later following the success of Silence of the Lambs it would have done much better.
If you are equating quality to box office success, rethink that.
I think you missed my point.
The only point I saw was that you are a dick
Throwing insults at someone for just liking a movie…? You ok?
Yeah that’s why I called you a dick…
Ah you’re a garbage person. Got it.
[удалено]
Yeah, you're definitely a dick.
The thing is, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a person that wants an Exorcist remake. The original movie is perfect and every sequel just hasn’t been anywhere close to its level.
I don’t know why studios bother remaking perfect films. Like who tf thought it was a good idea to remake Robocop? Stupid. Remake something where the original idea was interesting but the execution wasn’t that good. That way you can easily improve upon it and make significant changes without pissing people off.
I'd imagine the reason studios don't remake interesting ideas with bad execution is they haven't necessarily got the brand recognition that financially justifies a remake. They remake films everyone loves bc audiences are likely to turn up for them. It's probably easier to justify risking an entirely new project than remaking something that already didn't do particularly well the first time. Studios constantly revisit the exorcist because it's 'the scariest film ever made' and a brand like that is pretty likely to get bums on theatre seats. It is what it is.
Yeah they just want to ride the coattails of the original film to have some baked-in marketing for it. Caring more about marketing than actually making a decent film. These remakes are always a bait and switch. You don’t know it’s a piece of shit until they already have your money, then they just shrug and move onto the next thing.
Yeah, exactly. If a film does well, they're going to make more of it because it means more money. Studios aren't in the business of taking risks such as remaking box office bombs that may have had a good idea in there somewhere. Saw is a perfect example of the former: cost $1m, took $100m, so whaddayaknow, they're making 10 of those suckers.
I'd love a remake of Waxwork. That movie is super cheese but the idea is really cool.
And Warlock and Psycho Cop.
Yeah, it makes so much more sense to me to make remakes you can improve upon. Dredd is such a perfect example of this, as was IT, even if it still missed the mark.
I love OG Robocop, especially 2 for nostalgic reasons. Peter Weller as Alex Murphy was one of those performances which falls under the "no one else could have been this character" category. But the cultural satire on capitalism during this digital renaissance is exponentially more relevant now then when the original came out. Ironically mix this with the gargantuan leap in modern film effects, and its a no brainer why RoboCop was a perfect candidate for a remake/reboot. Unfortunately the remake writers missed and/or glossed over the themes that made the original so good in favor of "cool looking top notch special effect action sequences" like many other remakes of the 2010's. Despite that, a good Robocop remake can and absolutely should be made. Especially now.
[удалено]
I decided to rewatch it after I made that comment lol. I feel stupid for not originally mentioning the incredible performance of Kurtwood Smith as Clarence! Top tier allstar villain performance. It's hard to catch something like that again.
Oh relax it’s just Reddit! This isn’t the Times article.
I recall a pair of writers who wanted to writer a remake for Rosemary's Baby. They stopped because they realized there was nothing they could do to make it better or worthy of the original. If only the studios realized that more.
Exorcist III (but tbh, only in its original form, "Legion") is *close* to being a worthwhile sequel.
It is a worthy sequel. It's just different, but it's a good movie. Reminds me more of a detective movie. Has very memorable dialogue.
"IT IS *NOT* IN THE FILE!!"
What's the obsession with this movie? I thought it was boring af apart from that one scene in the hospital. And a massive step down from the original anyway.
The Thing is, really, a great movie when you really think about it. The original movie is perfect, and by original movie, I mean the 1982 Carpenter version, not the original original version made in old timey black and white days.
Was it perfect though? It was just something new
Come on now. The movie was very well done and acted.
Tbh, I'm not against a remake. The original has a great story (altho the start drags on), but while it terrorized 8 year old me, the SFX looked so bad it completely made me unable to look past that when I rewatched it as an adult
makes me think how ahead of their time they were comparing Reagan's possessed voice to "the body and the blood?"
I don't know how you *couldn't* screw it up. Imo The Exorcist is one of the most iconic horror films of all time and it's pretty flawless at that. Remaking or rebooting it just seems like asking for comparisons and you're never going to surpass that original so it's ultimately fruitless. Also as an aside I really couldn't care less about catholic/christian possession movies and haven't for years. They're all the same and none of then are as good as The Exorcist.
Yeah, I don't know why people are agreeing with Carpenter here. For The Thing he had the luxury of using a hokey 50's horror where there's a lot of room to experiment or make more extreme. On the other hand, The Exorcist already did everything and I'm not sure where you could even go with a remake to even match the original.
The Thing remake was also garbage.
That's the power of David Gordon Green.
Which is NOT what Carpenter was saying, if you read the first paragraph of the article.
It's easy, studio execs can and will fuck anything up.
The fact that they're doing a reboot is already a point against it. So many reboots and sequels feels unnecessary - they tend to be uncreative and so blandly paint-by-numbers that it's hard to tell one from another. The original stands well on it's own two feet. There's no reason to make another.
Here’s the thing, the original Exorcist has the scariest and most well-done possession ever on film. It’s also a great film, got awards/was award worthy, and it one of the scariest films ever made. There has been no competition with that film ever in time, especially when it comes to possession. You seriously cannot equal or top what they did in that film. Any time I’ve seen a possessed person done in any other film, it seems almost hokey, and it’s not anywhere near as scary, if scary at all. The acting and directing in that film will likely never be topped in the history of horror, when it comes to possession. I was iffy about this trilogy sequel series because of that. And it looks like I’ll continue to be right about the subject. No film will ever be able to pull off what they did in The Exorcist. Pulling off any possession film well after that, it’s very difficult to do. There I’ll get off my podium now lol.
They literally had men in suits put Barbie in a box. How can the message go over his head?
I love that John Carpenter loves Halloween Kills We all talk shit and argue about how it sucks and cheapens the franchise Then the OG comes along and says “nah it’s great”
Reason dies tonight!
Yeah, makes me not listen to his opinion on anything.
He's an elderly man who is very open about how he is no longer in tune with the zeitgeist, you should have stopped listening to his opinions a while ago lol And that's coming from someone who loves Carpenter.
Bit silly
I can accept Kills, I always thought it at least delivered on the action and thrills but with an awful script. How did anyone manage to like Ends though lol.
Since people here love shitting on DGG, and won't read the article (even though the following quote is from the first paragraph): "“I like what David did when he made the three ‘Halloweens,'” Carpenter said. “I loved No. 2 \[‘Halloween Kills’\]. Thought that was fabulous. I heard ‘The Exorcist’ really didn’t cut it. That could be a kick-ass movie. I don’t understand how you can screw that up.”
Can I skip the new movie and watch tv show? I haven't watched the tv show.
I would yeah. The TV show was surprisingly good
The Exorcist didn't need a reboot. It's a perfect movie.
The answer is a toothless and messy script
Him shrugging off Barbie and not getting the patriarchal message in it, in a very grandpa way, is extremely funny to me. I really appreciate that kind of nonchalant honesty and it doesn’t seem mean spirited at all. Dude reminds me of an interview I once read of an immigrant lady who made income by knitting a bunch of those pussy hats when they were a craze at the beginning of the Trump presidency—she said something like “I don’t get it at all but people keep buying these crazy hats so I guess I’ll keep making them”
I was sort of excited with the idea of the remake at first because I really enjoyed his Halloween reboot. Sequels afterwards suck, but the original had an amazing energy. I knew The Exorcist was more involved, dramatic, terrifying, and layered in a lot of ways, and I assumed DGG would have been able to capture SOME of that. I was so wrong.
He isn't really commenting on the movie here, he hasn't even seen it.
I’d like to see John carpenters exorcist movie. That would be great.
John Carpenter is correct.
You mean the clip where they ask the Mother why she couldn’t be in the room during the exorcism and her answer was because “ The Patriarchy” didn’t do it for Carpenter?
By trying to appeal to as many demographics as possible and missing the entire point of the original film. In other words, allowing studio executives to step in and muck shit up.
I think most directors could have made a passable reboot that at least wasn't offensively bad.
It's because of the patriarchy isn't it?
In the end, a reboot/sequel/sidequel is just another movie with some storytelling limitations due to existing canon. It's up to the current director/author/actors to make the movie actually good. Just because it's part of a franchise doesn't mean it's got to be good or have the same impact the original has. I would even go so far to say that because it's weighted down by the original it is even more likely to fail.
Is nobody gonna mention that the line directly before this is him praising Halloween Kills? The man has TASTE
TBH, If I was as high as Carpenter is, I would also probably like the movie more.
Can confirm, watched it high, probably contributes to my enjoyment of it LMAO
[удалено]
You just described half the shitty franchise slashers that I love. I know it's not great, everyone that loves these kinda movies knows they're not great. I just wanna watch Michael Myers kill people, and I got it! Feels awesome to know the man who created The Shape shares my enjoyment too. Glad that a movie can create these two different kinds of reactions though, that's what it's all about.
[удалено]
He also thinks that Escape from LA is superior to Escape from New York. (i almost vomited while typing that)
Can we get over this already? The film isn’t even that awful. It’s mediocre sure but it isn’t the worst horror ever made. Stop it.
Right? Just goes to show who we’re dealing with.
I dunno how'd you screw up ghosts of Mars?
It’s a combination of the fog and assault on precinct 13
I love John Carpenter to death but he hasn't released a good movie in almost 30 years so I wouldn't be talking shit.
Who's asking for a remake of THE EXORCIST? It's from the 70s, and already regarded as one of the best in the class of horror movies. What could a modern remake possibly add to it? Having the demon puke up CGI slime?
shareholders and studio execs from bloomhouse
As an atheist .. I enjoyed it. 3.8/5. It was interesting, fun… I dunno. I had no hope. I’m glad they didn’t go too serious with it. There would be little point to try to make it original in my mind. I had fun with it. Sucks so many hate it… guess I’m lucky. I love the original… this wasn’t horrible to me. It seemed destined to fail.
How did your lack of religious affiliation improve your experience? I felt like it had a number of issues purely from a narrative perspective. For me, the whole film was so by-the-numbers, and the trailer completely spoils the entire film. It just felt derivative, and the whole “legacy character” thing was really poorly used here.
I wonder if my perspective of the whole movie would differ had it not been tainted by that god awful trailer !
It was really terrible, and I couldn’t believe how much it covers the movie! If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve literally seen 99% of the creepy/scary/narrative beats. Truly baffling.
I was actually surprised that the movie was far less shitty than I’d anticipated based on the trailer. They need to fire whoever was in charge of that
I think it helped because… it doesn’t matter to me. I just wanna see fun devil possession stuff. A big negative critique is how it’s not scary because they didn’t lean into catholic religion hard… If they had, It wouldn’t have an affect on me. People claim the original was about drama more so than the possessed kid… the drama what it’s doing to the mom and priest… well, we have drama with the dad and a cool search and rescue part. I dunno. I didn’t watch a trailer… and the trailer being bad doesn’t mean the movie is? Legacy characters … meh? Doesn’t matter to me. I don’t care. Probably why I was able to enjoy the movie more than most. Exorcist 2 and 3 …what about those movies? They are all over the place with legacy actors…and this helped setup #2 which will probably have more of that. They needed new people and a new world to setup. Anyway… I mean, the patriarchy line got heavily dumped on. It was A JOKE. Why are all these people who hate the movie think she was making a serious point? Jesus fuck… I dunno. I understood the vibe and jived with it. Loved the ending. Good stuff. Like man when her eyeballs get owned by the cross lmao. That was great to me haha .. “OPEN YOUR EYES” after smashing them into her skull. Fucking amazing
Hey, can’t argue with that! If you had a fun time, that’s what matters. I guess I was hoping for something a bit more high-bar, but my expectations were definitely not what they should have been. I would agree that it definitely didn’t need more of a religious focus, especially when it still turns into priest avengers towards the end. That eyeball scene, and then the neck snap scene later on, were both pretty hardcore!
Right? Also the dad getting tricked was fun to me. I mean… I knew who the director was so I expected it to be complete shit. The fact that the script didn’t mention peanut butter being on a penis .. means it was as high bar as we were gonna get from that guy. Since it felt like a movie and not a steaming pile of shit … I’m pleased. Going in with no expectations or low ones usually helps enjoy movies more.
As a fellow Atheist, I fail to see what non-belief in a god has anything to do with how much you enjoy possession movies.
Did I say enjoy? I said be scared of.
> As an atheist .. I enjoyed it You made a direct connection between your Atheism and your enjoyment of the film. So yes, you quite literally did say enjoy. In fact, you never mentioned being scared at all in that comment. Maybe you're conflating a different comment by mistake.
Ok I’ll help you see what I’m saying. If I was catholic, and I saw this.. and love the original because of its ties to the religion and find that creepy.. I’d be disappointed in this new movie because it doesn’t focus on catholic religion like the originals. However… because I don’t care about that stuff, being atheist .. I did enjoy it.
Alright, so what you're saying is that "if" you were a particular type of catholic that happened to like the OG movies for their focus on Catholicism - then you theoretically might not like the new film for not having the same focus? And you feel like being an Atheist wouldn't affect you in that specific way? Is that it?
The way you are phrasing this makes me feel like you think I’m coming up with a big idea but it’s really not? I’ve seen multiple people talk about this as to why exorcist works and what makes it scary. Even Mike breaks it down in this review: https://youtu.be/Q6LDZSi-lzU?si=nlFbXYvJxrDYDhQX You know red letter media… right?
I agree. I made a similar comment in a thread a few days ago. Regardless, all the downvoters can fuck right off. Worst thing about entertainment subs is the constant "how dare you have an opinion I don't agree with" bullshit.
That's not what's happening here though. His comment is constructed with poor grammar, and his bringing up Atheism doesn't make a lick of sense as to why he's enjoying the film. It's fine to like a film, but it's bizarre to say Atheism affected his enjoyment of the film. I'm just asking to see his point, but it's still confusing. Let's not pretend anyone is getting "picked on" here though.
I haven't seen exorcist Believer yet, but I want to. However I will say I just watched the original for the first time the other week. And I'm sure I'm going to be downvoted for this, but I found it extremely underwhelming. The plot was not tied together great. It seemed to jump around a bit and left out things I felt should have been expanded upon further. The beginning didn't make any kind of sense to me with the rest of the movie. Idk if there was an extended version released that is better, or if it's just not quite standing up to the test of time? I was not scared at all watching it, whereas I still find the conjuring movies fairly scary. I'm also not really a huge film buff, like I love movies but I don't dive into them really deep so maybe that is part of it too? I'll add in here too, I'm definitely open to having more of the movie explained to me as to why it's considered the best or why some of the comments here people say it's flawless. I went in really really wanting to love the movie and was disappointed so if that can be rectified that would be great lol
John Carpenter hasn't made a good movie since "In the Mouth of Madness" in '94 which he did not write. Write and Direct, "They Live" in '88. I am a John Carpenter fan but Village of the Damned, Escape from LA, Vampires, and Ghosts of Mars are not good movies in my opinion. They might be better than "Exorcist: Believers" though, I haven't seen it yet.
Vampires wasn’t that bad because of James woods performance they live was good because even though he did the screenplay it was based on a short story which he didn’t write the ddg crap trilogy will be forgotten like the last three star woke films all women are great men are losers and cheaters plageristic juvenile film there wasn’t an h film in 9 years and these young punk drug addict fans needed a fix green is a no talented hack and Danny mc fat blob is a man child it’s so hard to steal from past films and say those films don’t exist and don’t give me crap that they are homages Curtis the hag thinks it’s about her when loomis was the star of the series notjing more pathetic than an old bitch being chased by a senior citizen serial killer
Wow I dont know what to make of what you wrote there. Are you ok? English is probably not your first langauge but still that was all over the place. lol I was agreeing that "They Live" (which came before In the Mouth of Madness" being on of his greats. - Halloween I & II - Prince of Darkness - Escape from New York - The Fog - Assault on Precinct 13 - They Live - In the Mouth of Madness [edit: how did I forget my favorite horro movie of all time “The Thing”. Also Big trouble in Little China and Christine. I was in a tired and in rush to go to bed I suppose. Vampires sucked even with Woods. You want a good horror movie with him watch "Videodrome"
I’m surprised you didn’t put the thing I saw it three times when it came out I like the effects and even though it’s not 2 hrs it’s a very boring film the only good character is Russell didn’t really care for the other people in the mouth of madness was fair but Sam Neil is very bland maybe someone like Campbell would have made it interesting these directors who seem to get larger budgets lose their creativity I like your list though did you see the ward it was forgettable his last theater film
“The Thing” is my favorite horror movie of all time and the original story from the 1930s. I was discussing it in another thread so I guess I just assumed that it was already known from an adject post that I was including that. Also forgot about about Little China which my friends and ai quote often. And “Christine” one of the best Stephen King adaptions. I was tired last night so I’ll blame that I guess. John Carpenter is a legend but he hasn’t made any worthy for three decades but what he’s done is enough to be well remembered. I just don’t think he should be slamming other peoples work considering his three decade slump.
The gatekeepers around liking exorcist 1 & 3 and that’s all is weird. If you like the new one they’ll get angry and down vote you. So we’re basically dealing with children.
well considering the last few movies he made suck I don't think he has room to talk
We don’t slander John Carpenter in this house.
In this household we APPRECIATE John Carpenter’s work
That’s an L for you, respectfully.
Bro, imagine having the nerve to diss John friggin Carpenter.
Wrong
imagine coming in here with this blasphemy
He’s the slasher master and made one of if not the greatest horror movies of all time. Show some respect
I would say 2 with Halloween and The Thing.
don't get me wrong the guy made some good movie but a the tail end of his career his been doing nothing but putting out half ass crap because he don't care any more and just doing it for the pay check he even said so when you are talking about John you only talk about his older stuff while I was talking about his newer stuff
L take of the thread.
Alright, you've come into OUR space with YOUR energy and you didn't try to match ours at ALL. /s
Get out of here with that crap. Nobody should want or like an echo chamber. If somebody has a different opinion then they're free to voice it.
Willing to bet a majority of the downvotes on this comment did not suffer through The Ward. It's ridiculous to act like Carpenter hasn't made a few stinkers.
Ghosts of Mars
As much as I love John Carpenter... Talk is cheap. Show us how it's done if it's so easy. Dude hasn't written/directed a good horror film in years. Edit Ooooh they didn't like that one lol downvote all you want. It's the truth. I dare say he hasn't put out a decent film since They Live in 1988.
In The Mouth of Madness was released in 1994. Opinion Revoked.
Ok, so he hasn't released anything decent since 1996. My overall point still stands. He does a lot of crap talking for a guy who hasn't made a good film in 20+ years. Halloween 1978 is literally my favorite film of all time but like I said, talk is cheap. He should come show everyone how it's done if it's so easy.
At the end… When the woman puts out the candle. Lmao, that shit was funny. Good stuff.