This post contains spoiler for those who care
-
lwa9921602-1 — 20 years ago(January 26, 2006 09:46 PM)
I've always assumed the creature was alien, not satan.
Particularly, the way he treats the priest with no respect for his reverence. I.E. he does not seem to care that the father is willing to give his life to satan and even scoffs that the priest has nothing to offer in the way of intelligence, that he is a fool, that killing him would be a waste of time.
That plus the attempt to get off planet point to it being an alien.
Finally, the alien has clearly been dormant for millenia, having only as high intelligence as a neanderthal, until he first kills the locksmith. The traditional view of satan does not support his lack of influence on Earth or his lack of knowledge to the point he would have to "learn from his human victims".
More than likely, the film-makers were trying to make a statement on how religion and science could view such a revelation as an extraterrestrial creature in different ways.
Consider this: If an alien race was discovered that was so advanced they could create worlds, life on those worlds, had psychic powers that made them all-knowing and were all powerful, we would call them God because they fit "our" desciption of God even if it turned out they were only aliens.
We have the power to deify something like the alien in Horror Express was deified by the priest. -
Jasons_Argonaut — 20 years ago(January 27, 2006 03:21 AM)
Thanks for your post. I had not really considered that aspect, so I guess that pretty much makes it official that the creature was very much an alien. Like I said, I just liked the possibility of the monster in fact being akin to a demonic spirit or satan himself, for as I said, movies in the horror genre rarely if ever get the devil right. After reading your post though, it becomes abundantly clear that it had to be an alien lifeform, especially in the fact that the priest had nothing to offer the creature that would aid it. Had it been Satan, he would jump at the chance to be worshipped, a point I very much failed to acknowledge in my original post. It is still very fascinating to watch how the the religious minded "deify" the entity though. Oh well, I did say that I was probably reading too much into it, LOL!
-
DD_dunsky1 — 19 years ago(June 13, 2006 07:52 AM)
That's what i love about this film, that on a superficial level it has you wondering whether the thing is an allien or really the devil, and the glowing red eyes look sinister enough for me..
But I think lwa9921602-1 summed it up pretty well, that the creature could not have been the Devil, at least not according to the biblical definition. The whole idea that people tend to view what they don't understand as the supernatural is a famous maxim of Arthur C. Clarke, and is explored in its profoundest sense in Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey, an exceptionaly great film, if you have seen it. -
Jasons_Argonaut — 15 years ago(December 13, 2010 10:07 PM)
the creature could not have been the Devil, at least not according to the biblical definition.
But, of course, it is alright for it to be the devil outside of Biblical terms too. Sometimes we confuse the subject matter when we try to shoehorn a story into adhering to one particular set of beliefs. I mean, The Omen works much better once you stop trying to make it fit solely with the Christian belief of an anti-christ. -
Jasons_Argonaut — 13 years ago(July 16, 2012 06:43 AM)
but the Devil's as we undertand him is a prooduct of the Judeo- Christian tradition, outside of that, there is no Devil.
I think you miss my point that the devil has become something more than just the strict Judeo-Christian depiction. The idea that, whatever one's personal belief states, that there is a God of some sort and a devil of some sort out thereperhaps that no religion has gotten rightcould be the reality. That is why I mentioned The Omen, as it does not subscribe to Christianity as much as it does to something unknown that has elements of truth taken from Christianity, among other things. -
FishHeadSweety — 19 years ago(November 03, 2006 02:47 PM)
If I remember correctly, the priest crosses himself backwards, right to left. that's how I knew he wasn't a real priest, but evil. It would help support your Satan theory. It's a good theory. I'll keep it in mind next time I watch the movie.
What's even freakier is I was going to suggest to you on the Horror Hotel board that we come rag on Horror Express. I was just going to say what a funny, furry alien the monster was. You seemed to get more out of it.
Talk to you later.
"You've been listening to music for old invalids"Little Shop of Horrors -
TheSomberlain — 17 years ago(January 23, 2009 12:58 AM)
There's a potential problem with your idea about the crossing. In Orthodox Christianity, priests do cross themselves from right to left. I believe that the filmmakers were Spanish (meaning that they would have grown up in a devoutly Catholic culture whatever their own views were), so maybe they weren't aware of this fact, which would mean that your point would still stand.
-
FishHeadSweety — 17 years ago(January 24, 2009 01:50 PM)
Since writing my original post, I've noticed in other movies Russian Orthodox characters seem to cross themselves right to left. So now I'm not so sure I can tell evil characters by right to left crossing any more.
Ask a fish head anything you want to, they won't answer. They can't talk. -
Jasons_Argonaut — 15 years ago(December 13, 2010 10:04 PM)
I would just like to point out that you guys should watch John Carpenter's "Prince of Darkness" for a movie about Satan being an alien force
Oh, I have seen that film. I like it quite a bit. I had forgotten about it, though, until recently when I revisited in on a John Carpenter DVD that collected it and three other films. It does indeed share similarities on the level of Satan being an alien.
-
Jasons_Argonaut — 17 years ago(June 12, 2008 01:41 PM)
"I think the film is implying that Satan was an alien, so technically the creature was "Satan""
That is actually a great thought. We already discussed in this thread the fact that religious people would apply their religious beliefs to that which they do not understand, hence thinking this "alien" was indeed Satan. Maybe this creature is indeed Satanor the basis upon which our ideas of Satan are based?? This idea can go back to the realm of logic that religion has a basis in alien visitations from the beginning.
I am religious myself, so I am not trying to offend with these thoughts. I am merely thinking along the context of what this film offers us. Thanks for all of your thoughts, gentlemen. Further discussion is most welcome. -
bladewrecker — 17 years ago(April 07, 2008 06:22 AM)
I think it was just an alien trapped on Earth thousands/millions of years ago, and has been moving from body to body, in an attempt tosurvive and ultimatly gain knowledge that would get it home.
You could think of it as a kind of mix between.The Thing From Outer Space and Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. -
shotgunnergauge5150 — 17 years ago(May 06, 2008 01:43 AM)
Also the creature seemed to gain greater power and abilities from entering Father Pujardov.Heck,he even raised a small milita of the dead to fight for him.If I am not mistaken doesn
t Hell literarly mean a seperation from GOD? My theory is that the creature was Satan cast down from Heaven in his Spirt form.As I also seem to recall that Satan was said to travel to and fro,all over the Earth.The passangers on the train were the first humans it had ever encountered.It didnt know,understand or care if people wanted to worship him.He is Damned and only wishes to regain Heaven.With this information and that of Jasons Argonauts coments my belief is yes,the creature represented Satan. "Its 3:45 AM 5/6/08 Primary Election morning here in Indiana".. -
hanfuzzy — 17 years ago(July 12, 2008 10:36 PM)
Two major points would rule out this being Satan, at least the "Satan" of Judeo-Christian-Muslim scripture.
- He had been frozen in stone for a few million years. That means he had missed out the entire existance of humanity - since before there were even walking apes. Therefore, he could neither be a literal being appearing to the scriptural characters (if you are a literalist), nor would he be the inspiration for some kind of symbolic cultural memory of Satan, as he'd been out of the picture since long before language or symbols would exist to even describe him vaguely. (2 million years goes back before apes to monkey-like human ancestors - assuming you accept the fossil record and its evidence for evolution, which some religious people don't. If you fall into that latter group, then I can't really have a serious discussion about this with you because the answer would just be "whatever the Bible says".)
- If he were the Judeo-Christian-Muslim, the ruler of Hell - all flames and such - he could hardly be destroyed by a flaming train, could he?
You might call him Satanic, in that he has many of the attributes ascribed to Satan by those religions. But it would only be a coincidence, and would not rule out other creatures, either alien or supernatural, also having Satanic traits. So you can't consider him to be "the" Satan, just something that coincidentally resembles some of the powers and characteristics ascribed to Satan.
Of course, he did say that there had been others of his kind who had left him behind. If that were true (and not just a lie), then perhaps one of these others returned while he was frozen and hung around the Middle East during Biblical times inspiring the Satan myth. If so, then our Horror Express baddie could be considered to be the brother or cousin of "Satan" - AND an alien. That lets both sides of the debate be true, pretty much.
-
Jasons_Argonaut — 17 years ago(August 04, 2008 05:26 PM)
Thanks for your very well presented thought, hanfuzzy! I like the idea that this creaturewhatever it may be, inspired the ideas of the devil that seem to permeate various religions. We had already came to this conclusion earlier in the thread, but I think it is the best outcome and one that pretty much satisfies everyone. Thanks again for your post!
-
TheSomberlain — 17 years ago(January 23, 2009 01:07 AM)
Toward the end of the film, if I recall correctly, the creature, in the form of Father Pujardov, refers to himself as "one of the fallen," which would seem to me to mean that he was not Satan, but one of the many lesser angels who rebelled with Satan against God in biblical lore. This might explain why he did not have the type of great influence traditionally ascribed to Satan himself.
When he tries to portray himself as an alien to Dr. Saxton, my inclination is to think that he is attempting to manipulate Saxton into thinking that he could be valuable to science and that sparing him for such a purpose could give Saxton the glory as a discoverer that was denied to him when the creature was released. I took it as though the Pujardov monster is trying to speak to Saxton in a language that he understands, with that language being science. -
lauriescreams — 14 years ago(April 15, 2011 05:48 AM)
You recall incorrectly. The creature says that it was a form of energy that visited Earth with others of its kind but was left behind by accident. That said, the entity is addressing a man of science, so one could speculate that the creature was lying in order to tempt him with "secrets of science."
But I find arguments for the creature being extra-terrestrial much more convincing.
For me, the greatest argument to the entity being extra-terrestrial and not satanic is the fact that it says to the monk: "There is nothing in your head of any use." To the entity, the monk's metaphysical babble is not worth the effort of sucking out of his head. It goes after thieves, spies, and most of all, scientists - it even asks one if it is possible to conquer gravity. When the scientist replies that it is theoretically possible and mentions a mentor who has ideas about rockets, it sucks him dry. This makes me think that the entity is an extra-terrestrial ultimate goal is simply to find its way back home.