Ok so like half of the film was pointless (spoilerzzzzzz)
-
Bunnyluv0012 — 15 years ago(July 26, 2010 11:08 AM)
I really love the beginning when JIll is in the house baby sitting and is terrorized. But the middle with the woman with the black hair and the fat detective was pointless, it became very boring but when they went back to Jill again and now she has her own family, the film picked up again great8/10
MYSPACE
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&f riendid=387606505 -
FranLovesBetteD — 15 years ago(December 27, 2010 02:06 PM)
I really love the beginning when JIll is in the house baby sitting and is terrorized. But the middle with the woman with the black hair and the fat detective was pointless, it became very boring but when they went back to Jill again and now she has her own family, the film picked up again great
That's exactly the way how I feel about it. I wish the film was more focused on Carol Kane's character much more instead of that pointless-endless middle part.
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop -
jroberts_95 — 14 years ago(May 05, 2011 10:30 PM)
I was really surprised by the plot of this film after seeing the remake first (which I hated). I assumed this film would focus solely on a girl being terrorized by phone calls while she's babysitting. I understand what you mean in terms of the middle part though- the film is somewhat disjointed. The beginning and ending make up one film and the middle make up another. It's still a million times better than the remake though.
-
FranLovesBetteD — 14 years ago(May 06, 2011 09:49 PM)
I must confess that I enjoyed the remake, which I saw first, ignoring back then about the original 1979 movie. But I have to agree with you about the original should have focussed mainly on Carol Kane's character. It would have been just 1.000 times better and way more entertaining, as she's such a terrific actress and the atmosphere inside that house was just perfect in order to expand the suspense for much longer.
Even though the stalking to the other woman by the killer was somewhat disturbing, like you said, it would have been just great for them to take that direction and expand it in a deeper way but for
another
movie. I wouldn't have minded at all had this movie lasted only one hour or so had it been focused on Carol's character only; the middle part gives just too much information on the killer's day after day and such, which we just don't need to know much about, spoiling the mystery. It's always much more frightening to ignore who he really is or what he really wants (well, at least for me
).
A great film though; the scene when
she's finally running away from the house and Charles Durning's face suddenly appears, making you think that he's the bad guy instead of the police
, as well as the ending,
when she finds out that the killer was laying down next to her,
were just terrific and very well filmed, and still give me goose bumps when I think about them!
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop -
Mithrandir-Olorin33 — 14 years ago(November 08, 2011 03:43 PM)
It felt more like a completely different film, I enjoyed it, but if I'd seen it in theaters in 79 I'd imagine being pretty ticked about it after being pulled by a Suspense Thriller..
"When the chips are down these
Civilized
people will Eat each Other" -
Chicken_Francese — 13 years ago(July 26, 2012 07:30 PM)
SPOILERS WARNING
The middle part of the film is NOT pointless because if it wasn't for John Clifford doing his private investigating so he could track the killer and kill him, he never would have been called by his friend, Lt. Charlie Garbar (who knew about John's revenge plot to kill Curt Duncan), who gave him the tip about Duncan calling Jill at the resteraunt. So John Clifford calls Jill's house the same night to see what's going on only to find out the phone line is disconnected. Then John Clifford takes it upon himself to pay Jill's house a visit, where ultimately, he saves her life by shooting Curt Duncan before he can kill Jill.
So to say the whole middle part was pointless is very incorrect, the beginning, the middle, and the end all connect very well in my opinionThank you.
I am the eater of worlds!!! -
proudbrunette — 13 years ago(November 19, 2012 08:40 AM)
It was absolutely pointless. They were off to a good start with Jill and the children, but then they cut it to that Tracy woman then back to Jill when the movie was almost over. Wtfish? Whose story were they suppose to be telling? It made no sense whatsoever.
-
Kimrubymoon — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 10:06 PM)
Right on, Chicken Francese! Right on. These people on these boards amaze me. I didn't realize so many people were incapable of intelligent thought and interested in the deeper psyche of Kurt. All these desensitized younger people today just want 90 mins of fast paced blood and gore. Most of them are clearly not capable of critical thinking.
-
LadyJaneGrey — 9 years ago(July 19, 2016 02:35 PM)
Not really. I saw this movie when it came out, as a teenager, and the whole middle of the film is like a different movie. It made little sense then and it makes little sense now. I just watched it recently again, and was struck by how schizophrenic this movie is. Nothing wrong with following the psychopathic killer after he escapes, but the Tracy woman and her bar exploits and inexplicable long walk home just don't fit in with the action as established. Perhaps if Kurt had been stalking a mother with kids, and we see his deeper psyche, as you call it, instead of with some random lady we never built rapport with, it might have helped the situation.
It's a poorly constructed film, and it suffers for it. -
ricky_may1 — 12 years ago(July 19, 2013 11:46 AM)
i liked the middle half, as well as the whole film in general. my only complaint was that Jill didnt factor back in until the last act, but thats a minor flaw honestly. the middle part does an awesome job of making us see the killer and see him for what he is; some may say this takes away the menace of his character, but i disagree; in fact unlike the Michael Meyers like psycho in the remake, this killer is troubled, vulnerable and unpredictable.
-
f2039 — 12 years ago(September 23, 2013 08:03 AM)
i think it's a mediocre movie after first ~20 minutes (duration can change because of different dvd formats); not bad, not totally pointless, but nothing special either.
first 20 minutes were excellent though. probably one of the best 20 minutes i've ever seen in a film -
ElectricWarlock — 12 years ago(September 26, 2013 12:20 PM)
Most people I've seen feel the same way as you and only like the first 20 minutes. However, I'm one of the rare people that like the entire film. The first and ending sections are some of the absolute most horrifying moments in horror film history (I can't imagine what I'd do in Jill's situation). But I feel the middle section really goes deep into the psychology of a serial killer and shows how someone as crazed as Curt Duncan would attempt to become a part of society again. The first 20 minutes and last 20 minutes are a horror film, but the middle section is more of a psychological thriller. Although different, I think both are extremely well done.
I've been waiting for you, Ben. -
Kimrubymoon — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 09:58 PM)
No, not pointless. It did something most horror movies today would never doit went deeper. Meaning, it was meant to show the truly disturbed psychological hell that was Kurt Duncan's psyche. Take a few psych courses, or educate yourself on your own and then rewatch. I shouldn't be so hard on your view but honestly, it reads as though you have the intellectual level of a 12 year old.