| Re .1, .2:
Okay, now I've seen it and I can comment on it.
It deserved a little better than being immediately buried in second-run
theaters and drive-ins. However, occultists would probably object
to certain areas of technical inaccuracy. I'll mention 1.5 after
a decorous spoiler space; however, it was somewhat more coherent
than other horror films I've seen lately. I would suggest that
you rent the pape, though, if you're interested, rather than seeing
it in a theater (if it's still in any).
Steve Kallis, Jr.
Spoiler follows:
In the middle of a film, a medium is brought in to exorcise the
spirit. [I would have brought in an exorcist or some such, myself.]
She's verry California, and she says that there's "a real gnarly
ghost" bothering the heroine. She can sense the thing before she
calls it. Then she calls it, and it apparently "goes away." Yet
later it "sneaks up" on her and kills her. If she had the power
to exorcise it at the vicxtim's apartment, why couldn't she do it
at home? Also, if she could sense it at the other apartment, howcome
she couldn't sense it approaching?
The trouble with the film is that it's a sort of lecture. When
the lecture's over and the action begins, the film's better than
3/4 done.
I'd give it (wearing my MOVIES.NOT hat) 5 out of 10 for this audience.
But I wouldn't go out of my way to hunt it down.
-SK
P.S.: They probably called it _Witchboard_ because 1) it's catchy;
2) it was released a couple of months before _The Witches
of Eastwick_ was; and, 3) Ouija is a registered trademark.
|