It looked a whole lot like the original classic of terror and suspense. Personally, I had mixed feelings about the original. I mean, sure, the kid was creepy. Sure, we all love the scene where the housekeeper says "Damien, I did it for you!" and hangs herself at the kid's sixth (sixth, SIXTH) birthday party. But despite those things, the movie felt a little...oh...I dunno...cornball.
In a desperate attempt to keep things interesting, the director of the original film version, who thinks the whole Revelation/Antichrist thing is all hogwash anyway, refused to say one way or another if the kid in the film REALLY WAS supposed to be the Antichrist. In an interview, he said he wanted to show what happens when two nice, normal parents get swept up by a bunch of crazies who THINK their kid is hellspawn.
And all those other things--the creepy nanny with the eerie voice, the demon rottweilers, the monkeys in the zoo going bananas when they see the kid, the 666 birthmark, the thunderstorms that come from out of nowhere, the scary demon choir, the fact that the kid can't get near a church without going completely bonkers, and everyone who comes in contact with him meeting grisly deaths by getting stabbed with falling church steeples, being knocked over by the devil's tricycle, or having their heads cut off--all those things were just wacky coincidences.
So let's settle this once and for all.
OMINOUS!
**An Official 42nd Floor Poll**
Is this kid the Antichrist?
13 comments:
No. He's just the devil incarnate.
Yes. I mean, from a theatrical point of view, it is the "clearer, bolder" choice, no?
PS, I have never seen this movie, so I don't know what I'm talking about.
Well, all you need to know a-dub, is that the child in this movie is eerily like Haley-Joel Osmond (is that how you spell his name?).
Q3 its Osment, I think or Osmet. Anyway He's the freaking Devil. It was written that he was THE ANTICHRIST as is seen through the trilogy and other things. I hate it when Directors do d-bag mvoes like this, and ruin a movie they want to remake
No, no, no...that's what I'm saying. The ORIGINAL director said he wanted it to be unclear as to whether or not the kid was evil. Not the REMAKE director.
The director is a whore. Let me explain: when you do something that is so obvious to everyone on the planet, (i.e. make a film about at the very least a demon posessed child if not the antichrist himself), and then say you don't really believe that's what you were doing, you are a whore who can't admit that you did exactly what the studios wanted you to regardless of your personal beliefs and/or vision.
satan's whore.
Has Herpes. Discuss
Okay, folks, it's time to get this poll back on track. This is a yes or no question with the option of entertaining elaboration.
Ok...let set the record straight!! Queen is right...it's Osmond...Sorry Gray-ham...
The director is definantly Satans Whore and we should sick the quakers on him...if not just fore pure entertainments sake.
and now for Forky's original intent....Yes..as far as the movie goes...He is the Antichrist!! (Who by the way is less powerful than the devil incarnate)(and if you read the Left Behind series you would know that the Devil doesn't incarnate anyone until after the AntiChrist dies...then he becomes the devil incarnate)( and if you read the left behind series you are reading stuff that makes no sense and is as close to being Biblicaly accurate as the Da Vinci Code is...but far less entertaining!)
Actually... it's Osment. Google it.
I apologize...i was wrong...Gray-ham please forgive me. It is Osment.
And just so you know Cach...i did google Osmond...and there must be enough stupid people on the internet that make sights to Haley Joel Osmond and don't have a clue...I admit i didn't look hard but they were there...I went to IMDB and SAG and found out how wrong i truly was.
HEY!
THIS IS A POLL ABOUT THE ANTICHRIST! NOT HALEY JOEL OSMET!
Post a Comment