diehard-5 on 25th Oct 2008, 11:49pm
1. "....movies should be judged by the time at which they were made..."
I don't think every movie should strictly be evaluated with reference to the times in which it was made, though certain movies might have looked better only in the times they were made, if it's principal thematic appeal is largely based on the social or cultural phenomenon of that particular era, the movie attempts to identify itself with. Barring few exceptions, many great movies,in fact, manage to stand the test of time because they all usually touch upon certain fundamental themes of human nature or ever recurrent facets of reality that are relevant any time. For ex, Kurosawa's 'Rashomon' or Scorcese's 'Taxi Driver'. Moreover, I am not sure,there weren't critics and the general audience who found 'The Exorcist' to be overrated even at the time it was released. In fact, the ability to withstand the test of time can be called one of the major yardsticks for calling a movie, of any genre, 'great'.
2. "...evil dead, considered one of the most scary movies of all times for long, wouldn't perhaps scare many kids today..."
I personally find Evil Dead to be much more scarier than 'The Exorcist' even to this day and I think the same about Donner's Omen. Unlike 'The Exorcist', both 'Evil Dead' and 'Omen' reflect better, the spirit of an horror flick.
3. "....many amitabh bachchan movies that were huge hits would appear too loud and melodramatic today...."
I think many contemporary Hindi movies are as loud and melodramatic as Bachchan movies were or just as crappy. In fact, many movies are much worse. Just like good movies, many bad movies too are not time-sensitive. They are 'bad' in any era though some of them are/were huge hits. On the otherhand, movies like Nihalani's 'Ardhsatya' look stunningly thoughtful even to this day, though it wasn't as huge a hit as some of it's contemporary Bachchan flicks.
4. ".....thus, exorcist was a movie that made a huge impact at its time, and might not appear as great to many who are watching it 30 years later, after watching much more technically superior movies...."
I never understand how as sloppily executed movie as 'The Exorcist' could have made a huge impact in any time(the only reason, I could think of is, Friedkin managed to sustain a dark, ominous mood half way through the movie. After that, the movie simply falls apart). On top of that, I believe 'Exorcist' wasn't a hit solely because of its 'special effects'(in fact, no horror film can be) given the fact that the audience couldn't have been bamboozled by visual effects alone, having already watched the likes of 'The Mckenna's Gold', that not only predates 'The Exorcist' but technically far brilliant, or, if you insist on speaking of the same genre, 'Frankenstein', released way back in 1931. Thus, 'The Exorcist' is simply a bad movie, not just because of its technical obsolescence or impertinence, but also because of it's thematic superficiality and poor narrative, which, usually, are symptomatic of bad movie-making anywhere, anytime.
That's one of the best dialogues this writer has heard in a long time.
Another being, "Testestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestest."
It's never easy to watch a movie and
enjoy it in Ramakrishna, unless watching a movie in Ramakrishna is itself your idea of enjoyment. If you did not understand that sentence, there's some localization you need, but that's not the point of this paragraph. It's how 1920 bludgeons the riotous and cacophonic crowd in the old neighbour....