Originally Posted by _____V_____ (Post 974320)

One of the finest films of it's era, and one of Burton's best.

The infallible, never-say-die spirit of the worst director of horror cinema (or cinema in general) is perfected to the T by Depp's towering performance, Bill Murray shines in a role tailor-made for him, Sarah Jessica Parker and Patricia Arquette play their muse roles to near-perfection, and Lisa Marie makes for a delectable Vampira.

But I thought the film belonged completely to Martin Landau's Bela Lugosi. Landau captures the essence of Lugosi in his last days, an ageing, forgotten superstar who yearns for the spotlight one final time, despite his long drug addiction getting the better of him. You can feel his melancholiness, his despair, his legacy of being THE Count, and his larger-than-life presence. An Oscar well-deserved, sir. Hats off!

A must-watch, if any of you haven't already. Don't make me shoot you!


* * * *

Originally Posted by horcrux2007 (Post 974341)

I watched "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" today, and it was absolutely awful. I liked how they took it as a sort of courtroom drama, but that caused problems as well. There was no time to develop Emily Rose at all. Right off the bat, she's possessed, and I don't care about her because I know nothing about her. Also, the acting was subpar, the cinematography was somewhat annoying (lots of shaky cam), and it was never scary. For the most part, Emily Rose was either hallucinating about people's faces contorting (oooh scary) or practicing her Cirque du Soleil routine.

2/10

Originally Posted by horcrux2007 (Post 974371)

What it should have done is make the Emily Rose segments more dramatic and not horror like the courtroom segments and show more of Emily than talk about her. I wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't a horror movie and was instead a straight-up courtroom drama. .

Originally Posted by The Villain (Post 974374)

Personally I didn't have a problem with them not developing Emily's character because I didn't see this movie as an exorcism movie where its all about the possessed and what they're going through. It was more of a religion vs. Science debate told through a horror movie and a courtroom drama. Emily's ordeal was just the backdrop and so it wasn't too important to focus on her.

Originally Posted by horcrux2007 (Post 974375)

The point I'm making is that, because I know nothing about her, I don't care about her being possessed, whether she was killed or not, or whether the guy was guilty or not. I'm not really asking for like 45 minutes to build up her character because in the Exorcist, Regan spent most of her time possessed but she did have some development at the beginning of the movie, making me care about her more than if there was no development. I get your point, but I think it would have made it more effective if we knew more about her.

Originally Posted by horcrux2007 (Post 974386)

Then what's the point of the "jump" scares and "scary imagery"? If it was science vs religion, it didn't need to be a horror movie at all.