“You have just seen a motion picture whose theme dares to be startlingly different.”

I remembered this movie having a hell of an effect on me when I first watched it probably about 10 years ago, but I guess I’ve always put off seeing it again, as I often do with movies watched at that time, not wanting to be disappointed by some rogue change in my outlook or something. Recently, I’ve been even worse at watching older movies than ever, so I finally started watching this movie with even more trepidation. What can I say … it’s as ethereal, creepy, and – yes, I know this makes me a twisted f**ker, lol – hilarious an experience as I remember it, and though I’d still kinda love to see a remake (especially by Eli Roth, though it looks like he’s been dropped, and sadly it’s also too late to cast Miranda Cosgrove, the girl I would’ve loved to see as Rhoda – Dakota too), watching this now, bearing in mind it is now 50 years old (applause, please – seriously, it’s humbling how good this movie is bearing that fact in mind), I’ve never questioned the need for a remake more.

Perhaps at 130 minutes the movie is too long for its subject matter, and that fact combined with the fairly static camera and limited sets betray its stage roots. Part of me would like to see a remake trying make the whole thing more cinematic, even if it turned out to be a disastrous experiment. But, the original really does still work … and I dare say they got away with more then than some of the bigger studios would dare now. In any case, it works so much better with the general 50s movie-making style than it would now … unless they had Disney animate it or something – it’s the corruption of an innocent neighbourhood that’s key here, and what neighbourhoods were more innocent than the suburbs in the 1950s? The movie feels like Linda Blair’s Pazuzu walked in on one of his ‘playful’ days to a Douglas Sirk set.

It’s a queasy delight, at least it is to me, and Alex North’s score plays along all the way. If you like seeing hoity-toity people who think their world is perfect put in their place by manipulative unlikely little girls, especially one played as brilliantly, terrifyingly, as this one is by Patty McCormack (again, yes I’m aware of how twisted my sense of humour is), this one’s definitely for you. Even if you’re naïve and take this as a horror movie (I mean, surely this corrupting pre-teen witch must be possessed by something!!!), there’s still entertainment to be had.

Double/triple-bill comments – you could go the obvious route on this one and watch other crazy children movies like The Exorcist, The Omen, or Village of the Damned. But I’m more inclined to put it with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? – for the unexpected horror to be found in old cinema; Todd Haynes’ Douglas Sirk infection, Far From Heaven, where homosexuality is regarded with as much fear almost as Rhoda here; or maybe Paul Schrader’s Auto-Focus. Unorthodox suggestions, maybe, but that’s just what came to mind while watching. I guess I’m a little hooked on the image of a sinister worm eating away at the idealistic decade. Hmm, that image rings a bell … maybe it is time for a remake afterall?

A lot of people criticise the “cop-out” ending of the movie that differs from that of the novel and the play – as requested by the end titles, even though it’s half a century on, I won’t talk about the ending … but I will say that I really don’t think who lives and dies makes a lot of difference to this story. And btw, am I the only one who thinks Patty McCormack’s, err, “end credit moment” is one of the funniest movie moments ever?

Disclaimer No, I don’t condone the murders Rhoda commits I just think she’s damn funny and smart in dealing with her near-equally flawed accusers, lol.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006 at 1:17 am and is filed under 5 hearts, Movie Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.