It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
What still holds up well for the FC is that it doesn't play on sentiment. This story is about hardened cops in an violent urban landscape dealing with drug traffickers where there's little or no room for naval-gazing or weakness, which has sadly become the currency for modern movies to be thought of as believable all over again. These were violent times and FC, I feel, accurately reflects those.
The Exorcist follows William Peter Blatty's book faithfully, due mostly to the fact that he wrote the screenplay and produced the movie. It was Blatty that wanted Friedkin over the studio choices of Arthur Penn or Kubrick, who both turned it down anyway. Mostly because he wanted the movie to feel grounded and gritty. If the movie lacks "emotional depth" that's because the book also lacks it. Not that I feel either do. The Exorcist worked (special effects have improved greatly since 73) because the movie felt and looked real. Watch the recent TV show series scene that copies the moment Ellen Burstyn goes up into the attic. A throwaway moment in the book that has none of the dread that was made tense and scary by Friedkin's direction. The TV series can't hold a candle (pardon the pun) to the original, nor can the rip-off Paranormal Activity that copied it shot-for-shot.
Now what is/was surprising was that Friedkin wanted to remake the French movie Wages of Fear and how it got to be renamed the Sorcerer, clearly a title to cash in on the Exorcist from the studio. Did you know the Sorcerer was originally conceived as a side-project to Friedkin's next major film, The Devil's Triangle about planes disappearing into space in the Bermuda Triangle? Now that was a movie I really wanted to see get made, not so much the Sorcerer. Problem with the remake is that the budget went from modest to big to studio-killing proportions, requiring Universal and Paramount to co-produce the picture. It didn't help that Friedkin lost his most bankable lead in Steve McQueen, who refused to leave wife Ali McGraw's side. McQueen loved the script and even asked if McGraw could be made a producer so that she could accompany him on location, but the request was denied. Friedkin later regretted the decision, believing that with McQueen as the lead the film could have been a hit.
Sad really, as it destroyed Friedkin and subsequently we never got to see The Devil's Triangle movie that would've starred Steve McQueen, Marlon Brando and Charlton Heston. Rumor has it the story was very close to Spielberg' CEOT3K, which was another reason the movie was eventually shelved.
Anyway, I've seen both versions. Friedkin's obviously is better filmed due to its phenomenal budget, but the original is a thing of classic beauty. Is it possible to like both versions equally?
@bondsum In that paragraph of mine you quoted I ought to have taken time to craft a clearer phrase than "devoid of emotional range," as it does have a more negative effect than what I intended. In the context of these three films, I meant to point to the positive in Friedkin opting not to go for certain emotional responses during this scene here or that scene there when he could have. I think the way he seemingly targets a heightened emotional state in the viewer—fashioned around a focal, cumulative sequence—is a successful and effective approach. As you say of FRENCH CONNECTION, it doesn't play on sentiment, and it's the better for it.
In fact my intent with that entire paragraph was mostly observational and even, slightly, to point out something positive. My criticism of FRENCH CONNECTION and EXORCIST was basically meant to amount to, "Based on these two films, Friedkin might not be for me" — which is more a statement on myself than Friedkin. Though again, an entirely understandable reading on your part, as my "neither of which impressed me greatly" was again a poor phrase. Something closer to "neither of which connected with me" (or french connected with me — ba dum chh) would have been more on the mark to what I feel. I can recognize the importance of those two films and in no way dismiss what they achieved.
Now all this said, I do owe those two films a rewatch. So my mind might be changed, as it often has been.
Had no idea either of those two were offered it. Penn would've been interesting.
Of course! Films aren't better or worse necessarily, mostly just different. ;) Though some can certainly be destructive. Luckily neither of these falls into that category.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of both Friedkin's FC and The Exorcist due to his directorial eye. I think the Sorcerer would've been a hit if he'd relented and allowed Ali McGraw to co-produce and accompany him on the location shoot. McQueen's presence alone would've boosted the audience numbers, as would've his presence in Apocalypse Now, another movie that he walked away from, but for different reasons. McQueen also dropped out of Close Encounters, too. I thrown in CEOT3K and Apocalypse Now just in case you're forgetting how big McQuuen was and how every filmmaker always gave him first refusal on their pet projects.
Also check out Friedkin's To Live And Die In LA (1985
A brutal thriller about two secret service agents who will do anything to get a master counterfeiter. Stars William Petersen and Willem Dafoe.
Features an incredible car chase down the wrong way of an LA freeway!
Easily one of my favorite action thrillers, as well. The choreography is incredible.
I really want to see this but I can never find a copy of it to rent or buy. It looks good.
Without giving anything away very tense scenes throughout especially the end, the film is stripped down not glorified action like many films around that time make it even better. It's up there with First Blood as one of my personal favourites.
Absolutely. Past that opening, it doesn't really rely on grand set pieces or anything like that. Just two highly-skilled men tearing one another to pieces for 90 minutes, with a bit of an emotional connection thrown in. I love it.
Always wondered what Bond 17 would have been like with Ted Kotcheff at the helm, and Dalton as Bond!
I have had the film for years on DVD I really should see if I can get it on BD, I love the build up to the train so many great cat and mouse moments or rather cat and cat.
It wasn't available on blu-ray here in the States, so I grabbed a copy from Amazon Germany for relatively cheap. Only shame is the audio is a bit low, and it only has German subtitles so you really have to crank the volume on it.
I have two DVD copies the first I got the audio was not synced up correctly with the images, think the DVD's were cobbled together a bit not much effort put in.
I remember the film getting zero publicity at the time I watched it purely based on the talents involved, there are a few good movies the slip under the radar that get very little spent on them. If the film does exist on BD it's a almost certainty it will be the DVD transfer.
Think we would have had some Bond film that's for sure.
I remember seeing the posters for this film at the time, it's one I missed though definitely on my watch list.
Edited: Just ordered To Live And Die In LA It's a Arrow release nice.
If only they had stuck with the books ending.
I disagree- First Blood is still awesome. And I've watched it pretty recently...
Recently caught up with Rambo:First Blood II.
Now that does not hold up well at all!!
Kotcheff has some odd choices in his resume
(Weekend at Bernies!!?) But if he had tackled Bond in the same way he handled First Blood we could of had an awesome Bond movie!
I love the Rocky films they are my goto films for training motivation, if you have not seen Creed I highly recommend.
I recommend watching the first 3. The first one is a bit cheesy, true, but if you can get through it, the second one isn't bad and then we get Clubber Lang (Mr. T chewing the scenery) in 3.
The character I can't stand is "Yo Adrian".
As for the Rambo films, I have to agree that First Blood: Part II and III are unable to hold up well by today's standards, they are regardless some guilty pleasures of mine. Some people prefer the second over the third, but I actually love the third more, especially the scenes where Rambo has to do some sneaking into the enemy territory and some spying. The action sequences are great in there, in my opinion.
That's the only one I've seen - I guess it's more of a spin-off, so I should've clarified.
Rocky is very much a series you need to be invested in Rocky himself the films are a mixed bag though I enjoy Rockys journey, though like @ClarkDevlin alluded to Rocky V is tough going even for die hard fans.