Wikipedia Sucks!

NadirAli wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 17, 2023 3:43 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU2Y_9OVVMc&t=2s

Richard Eder of The New York Times called it "a dreadfully silly film" but "reasonably well-paced. We don't have time to brood about the sillinesses of any particular scene before we are on to the next. There is not a great deal of excitement, but we manage to sustain some curiosity as to how things will work out."[39] Variety praised Richard Donner's direction as "taut" and the performances as "strong", and noted that the script, "sometimes too expository, too predictable, too contrived, is nonetheless a good connective fibre."[40] Roger Ebert gave the film 2.5 stars out of 4.[41] Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune also awarded 2.5 stars out of 4, lauding the "firepower sound track" and several "memorable" scenes, but finding the story "goofy."[42] Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times called it "an absolutely riveting, thoroughly scary experience, a triumph of sleek film craftsmanship that will inevitably but not necessarily unfavorably be compared to The Exorcist."[43] Tom Shales of The Washington Post declared, "It's probably the classiest Exorcist copy yet, but as a summer thriller, it can hardly challenge the human appeal and exhilarating impact of last year's Jaws ... Seltzer, busy justifying his baloney premise with Biblical quotations, forgets about narrative logic or empathetic characters."[44]

Gene Shalit called the film "a piece of junk", and Judith Crist said it "offers more laughs than the average comedy."[45] Jack Kroll of Newsweek called it "a dumb and largely dull movie."[46]

ericbarbour wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 21, 2023 7:21 pm

NadirAli wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 17, 2023 3:43 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU2Y_9OVVMc&t=2s

There are actually quite a few movie productions with one "curse" or another. I once had an argument with Strelnikov about one of John Wayne's silliest movies, The Conqueror from 1956. It's a perfect subject for argumentation.

Have a listicle of "cursed" films. Mostly sounds like the general stupidity, greed and sloppiness of Hollywood production. Alcohol and drug abuse has been rife in Tinseltown since its beginnings too.

Also, consider Wikipedia's take, which fails to mention the curse.....

Richard Eder of The New York Times called it "a dreadfully silly film" but "reasonably well-paced. We don't have time to brood about the sillinesses of any particular scene before we are on to the next. There is not a great deal of excitement, but we manage to sustain some curiosity as to how things will work out."[39] Variety praised Richard Donner's direction as "taut" and the performances as "strong", and noted that the script, "sometimes too expository, too predictable, too contrived, is nonetheless a good connective fibre."[40] Roger Ebert gave the film 2.5 stars out of 4.[41] Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune also awarded 2.5 stars out of 4, lauding the "firepower sound track" and several "memorable" scenes, but finding the story "goofy."[42] Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times called it "an absolutely riveting, thoroughly scary experience, a triumph of sleek film craftsmanship that will inevitably but not necessarily unfavorably be compared to The Exorcist."[43] Tom Shales of The Washington Post declared, "It's probably the classiest Exorcist copy yet, but as a summer thriller, it can hardly challenge the human appeal and exhilarating impact of last year's Jaws ... Seltzer, busy justifying his baloney premise with Biblical quotations, forgets about narrative logic or empathetic characters."[44]

Gene Shalit called the film "a piece of junk", and Judith Crist said it "offers more laughs than the average comedy."[45] Jack Kroll of Newsweek called it "a dumb and largely dull movie."[46]

Hail Satan?