Burnt Offerings in '70s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Burnt Offerings

Author	Comment
jaymazing		#21	[-]
Feb 3 09 2:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	borisandbelarule wrote: Moving on, the movie was frustrating to me because of a few nonsensical premises You are expected to accept the fact that this family, already bringing with them one elderly woman who needed care, would take over a house with another 85-year-old woman upstairs BEFORE even meeting her. No way in reality does that happen. The house was a horrendous mess. Why in God's name would they want a summer escape to that? You never get an explanation why Oliver only went nutso that one time with the kid, but was generally sane the rest of the time. There is no resolution as to whether Bette did or didn't lock the window and turn on the gas. And why was the kid never affected at all? I didn't have a problem with some of the points you mention and here's why: 1) When they first see the house, Karen Black mentions how Aunt Elizabeth is "no trouble at all." I think though she might have neen in her 70's or so, she was full of life and could more than take care of herself. It wasn't until the house started coming alive or whatever that she started going downhill. So I don't agree with your assessment that she needed care. 2) With the house being a mess, I think it was obvious why they took it. A huge house like that for $900? Messy or not, its a steal! 3) I think Oliver Reed went nuts because it had something to do with the glasses he found at the bottom of the pool. I believe he got possessed briefly by the previous owner of the sunglasses or something like that. Either way, its eerie to me BECAUSE its not clear.
	Remove this ad
borisandbelarule		#22	[-]
Feb 3 09 6:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	jaymazing wrote: borisandbelarule wrote: Moving on, the movie was frustrating to me because of a few nonsensical premises You are expected to accept the fact that this family, already bringing with them one elderly woman who needed care, would take over a house with another 85-year-old woman upstairs BEFORE even meeting her. No way in reality does that happen. The house was a horrendous mess. Why in God's name would they want a summer escape to that? You never get an explanation why Oliver only went nutso that one time with the kid, but was generally sane the rest of the time. There is no resolution as to whether Bette did or didn't lock the window and turn on the gas. And why was the kid never affected at all? I didn't have a problem with some of the points you mention and here's why: 1) When they first see the house, Karen Black mentions how Aunt Elizabeth is "no trouble at all." I think though she might have neen in her 70's or so, she was full of life and could more than take care of herself. It wasn't until the house started coming alive or whatever that she started going downhill. So I don't agree with your assessment that she needed care. 2) With the house being a mess, I think it was obvious why they took it. A huge house like that for $900? Messy or not, its a steal! 3) I think Oliver Reed went nuts because it had something to do with the glasses he found at the bottom of the pool. I believe he got possessed briefly by the previous owner of the sunglasses or something like that. Either way, its eerie to me BECAUSE its not clear. 1. Yeah, I agree. Auntie Eliz didn't need a whole lot of help, but she did need to be driven around. And really, how many couples with a young child do you know who maintain a household with TWO elderly people in it? 2. Wasn't this supposed to be a summer vacation spot? I'm not sure I'd want to spend it in a massive fix-me-up (great deal or not), when I was supposedly leaving in a couple of months. 3. You know, you're right. I think the glasses did have something to do with Oliver's freakout. But it seems to me they play really fast and loose with what is wreaking havoc on them - the house, the ghosts, or the implements (like glasses). None of this made me totally dislike the movie. I thought it was better than many I've watched. It's interesting... taking part in a movie message board is enjoyable because you can share thoughts with others. But you also analyze the movie more, which often raises more questions in your mind than if you just watch it, take it for what it is (fantasy) and put it back on the shelf. It's a double-edged sword, I guess.
jaymazing		#23	[-]
Feb 3 09 7:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That's true. Anything I saw back in the 70's or early 80's I will always have a soft spot for. Especially Burnt Offerings. But there were quite a few things that I didn't notice until years later, for example, signs she is becoming the hag like eating the "old lady's" meals and the pictures at the end being past victims. But I just thought of something that may not make all that much sense. Ben recovered from his paralysis (or whatever it was) by the pool pretty quickly since they tried to leave the next day.
JimPV		#24	[-]
Feb 3 09 7:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	evilskippy wrote: I've had this movie for almost a year and still haven't watched it. Don't think I've vere seen it. Same with me, evilskipster. And like happydude33, I bought it cheap at Big Lots. Just haven't gotten around to giving it a spin. I will, though... I will...!
borisandbelarule	Burnt Offerings	#25	[-]
Feb 3 09 8:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	jaymazing wrote: That's true. Anything I saw back in the 70's or early 80's I will always have a soft spot for. Especially Burnt Offerings. But there were quite a few things that I didn't notice until years later, for example, signs she is becoming the hag like eating the "old lady's" meals and the pictures at the end being past victims. But I just thought of something that may not make all that much sense. Ben recovered from his paralysis (or whatever it was) by the pool pretty quickly since they tried to leave the next day. I just kind of took it that it was the house that was paralyzing him, and that he used his will to break its hold. Lot of good it did him, huh.
Richard		#26	[-]
Feb 4 09 1:18 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	borisandbelarule wrote: Watched this last night and I came away with all sorts of mixed reactions. Yeah, it was creepy at times. I loved it when all of the clocks suddenly snapped to midnight. And when Karen started eating the old lady's food herself, I got a shiver. Anything to do with the black hearse and Mr. Creepy getting out of it with that demented smile, that was chilling. That was Anthony James. Tall, lanky, boney frame, gaunt features with a huge smile and a row of big white teeth. I've always thought he should play the Joker. He's one of Clint Eastwood's buddies and frequently appears in his films -- the brothel keeper in Unforgiven, etc. He's also prominent in In the Heat of the Night. Why nobody every thought of him for the Joker is beyond me. borisandbelarule wrote: Moving on, the movie was frustrating to me because of a few nonsensical premises You are expected to accept the fact that this family, already bringing with them one elderly woman who needed care, would take over a house with another 85-year-old woman upstairs BEFORE even meeting her. No way in reality does that happen. The house was a horrendous mess. Why in God's name would they want a summer escape to that? You never get an explanation why Oliver only went nutso that one time with the kid, but was generally sane the rest of the time. There is no resolution as to whether Bette did or didn't lock the window and turn on the gas. And why was the kid never affected at all? I think I get the basic premise, that Burgess and the others were looking for someone to apparently replace good 'ol mom, and Karen was the obvious choice. But why? Or were they victims of the house themselves, just more people in a long line (as would be suggested by the old lady's photo collection) who decided not to fight the allure of the place and wind up on the drawing room table? To be honest I would have preferred a different ending (where somehow Ben and the kid survive while Karen is left to her madness), but it was sufficiently horrific from an entertainment standpoint. When all was said and done, it was a worthwhile, if not a logical watch. This one had been sitting on my vhs tape shelves unwatched for 23 years. Aside from it being a pretty good movie, I enjoyed the commercials on our local station for the 1986 model cars. You watched it with commercial interruptions? No wonder the internal logic of the story escaped you. Your concentration was hijacked by 1986 model cars. The house starts working on their thinking the moment they drive up to it. They are all blindsighted. The original novel by Robert Marasco makes this clear, but I believe it's clear in the film as well. The DVD is quite nice, if you try that sometime you may come away with a better impression of the film. Richard "... little by little the look of the country changes because of the people we admire." dialog in HUD (1963) Last Edited By: Richard Feb 4 09 6:17 PM. Edited 1 times.
CreepingBride		#27	[-]
Feb 4 09 1:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts
Red Gargon		#28	[-]
Feb 4 09 1:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Hooray for that Big Lots sale! I did like this one better after seeing it on DVD, but I'm still in the ambivalent camp on its merits as a great '70s horror. While I loved DARK SHADOWS, I think BURNT OFFERINGS evidences a lot of the shortcomings of Dan Curtis as a feature filmmaker - repeated trips to the same storyline wells (this is a lot like a gender-reversed NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS), unattractive handheld camerawork, privileging the actors over the film's overall composition, etc. It's a pleasing ghost story, but ultimately not a tremendously original or memorable one in my book.
Richard		#29	[-]
Feb 4 09 6:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	CreepingBride wrote: Well done, creepingbride! Look at that face! The spitting image of the Joker in the DC comics during the 1950s-1990s. Does anyone see the resemblance? Richard "... little by little the look of the country changes because of the people we admire." dialog in HUD (1963)
ardethbey		#30	[-]
Apr 3 10 1:11 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's on TCM right now, and I was about to turn it off before Burgess Meredith made his intro. Wow...it's so...70s. Over the top. Extremely dated, kinda fun.
	Remove this ad
horrorfilmx		#31	[-]
Apr 3 10 10:49 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ardethbey wrote: It's on TCM right now, and I was about to turn it off before Burgess Meredith made his intro. Wow...it's so...70s. Over the top. Extremely dated, kinda fun. I used to work with a woman who drove me crazy by saying "That's so Seventies!" every time a Seventies movie came on, as if a movie made in the 1970s should be expected look like one made in the Thirties or the Nineties. I think it's kind of odd to be faulting a movie for looking like it was made when it was made.
ardethbey		#32	[-]
Apr 3 10 1:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	horrorfilmx wrote: ardethbey wrote: It's on TCM right now, and I was about to turn it off before Burgess Meredith made his intro. Wow...it's so...70s. Over the top. Extremely dated, kinda fun. I used to work with a woman who drove me crazy by saying "That's so Seventies!" every time a Seventies movie came on, as if a movie made in the 1970s should be expected look like one made in the Thirties or the Nineties. I think it's kind of odd to be faulting a movie for looking like it was made when it was made. You have a point there...I apologize. However, it is true that some films feature the excesses and quirks of their era more prominently, which attracts some viewers and turns off others.
horrorfilmx		#33	[-]
Apr 3 10 3:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ardethbey wrote: horrorfilmx wrote: ardethbey wrote: It's on TCM right now, and I was about to turn it off before Burgess Meredith made his intro. Wow...it's so...70s. Over the top. Extremely dated, kinda fun. I used to work with a woman who drove me crazy by saying "That's so Seventies!" every time a Seventies movie came on, as if a movie made in the 1970s should be expected look like one made in the Thirties or the Nineties. I think it's kind of odd to be faulting a movie for looking like it was made when it was made. You have a point there...I apologize. However, it is true that some films feature the excesses and quirks of their era more prominently, which attracts some viewers and turns off others. Oh, completely true. That's what makes The Brady Bunch Movie and Austin Powers funny. Sorta. And great movies, like Kong and The Maltese Falcon, manage to evoke their period and be timeless. I wasn't looking for any trouble!
Phantom Stranger		#34	[-]
Apr 11 10 3:29 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I remember seeing this movie in theaters back in '76 and thinking it was pretty decent, I mean it was made by Dan Curtis who created "Dark Shadows" one of my favorite TV shows and it had some good actors starring in it. I saw it the one time and never saw it again , that is until last night and WOW....what a turd. Boring. pointless and not the least bit scary. It's amazing how a few decades can change your opinion of something.
Uncle Bingo		#35	[-]
Apr 30 10 10:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The book is darn good. The movie is a little on the drag side but still worth a watch now and again. Meredith is always a scene stealer and one of my favorite all-time character actors (I loved him as the Postman in Magic). My neighbor has always been really impressed with the evil smile of the chauffeur. He is a creepy dude with his CHIPS sunglasses on. Things I didn't like about the movie: Bette Davis' death scene. I don't think Curtis had the guts to tell her to "tone it down a bit." Sheesh. Hurry up and die already Aunt Elizabeth. You ain't NEVER getting your license now! "Benji....I don't LIKE it here." Good. Leave. It all seems a little too well lit for a horror movie. Everything is rather bright and sunny. In the DVD commentary with Karen Black and Dan Curtis I realized that I hate Karen Black. I don't find her attractive at all and never did. She is obviously a very narcissistic person by her comments (more so than most actresses) and she comes across as a dimwit to boot. She can't understand why she got "wrapped up doing horror movies"....let me explain it for ya Karen. You have a naturally bitchy looking face and your eyes are kinda weird. You aren't exactly "leading lady" material. If you think I am being harsh, listen to her blathering on about herself in the commentary... It's enough to ruin your TV dinner. As much as I like the Chauffeur character, he really is never explained really. Did he really come in and get Aunt Elizabeth...or was it all a dream? What does he have to do the house? Things I liked: (SPOILERS) The idea of the house regenerating with the "human offerings." That is a clever idea. Credit Bob Marasco for that. Mrs. Allerdyce. It was a little more obvious what was happening in the movie, but in the book it came as a shock first time around. The picture collection of the victims. I wish this was a movie that could be remade better, but with the novelty of the story and the ending, it makes no sense because there would be no surprise. The cat is out of the bag.
Grant		#36	[-]
Apr 30 10 8:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	horrorfilmx wrote: ardethbey wrote: It's on TCM right now, and I was about to turn it off before Burgess Meredith made his intro. Wow...it's so...70s. Over the top. Extremely dated, kinda fun. I used to work with a woman who drove me crazy by saying "That's so Seventies!" every time a Seventies movie came on, as if a movie made in the 1970s should be expected look like one made in the Thirties or the Nineties. I think it's kind of odd to be faulting a movie for looking like it was made when it was made. This should be in that Pet Peeves thread, but people can really clutch at straws doing that, whether they're saying something about a decade that's nice, mean, both or neither. Doing it up to a certain point is one thing, but it's been turned into an all-out SCIENCE. There's just something about a DECADE that seems to invite that. It always reminds me of a line in one of Woody Allen's short stories, about the bullfighter Manoletti - "Only a true Spaniard would behave as he did. He would speak Spanish, and visit his home town in Spain."
jjonathanbarnett		#37	[-]
May 2 10 4:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I have a soft spot for this movie, like most of the productions from Dan Curtis. As a kid this movie did scare the heck out me, as much anything other movie. Thus it is difficult to not be scarred of the movie. It didn't seem that slow at all. No more or less than any other random form the 70s. I recently saw a print on TCM. It came off as a forerunner for THE SHINING, at least the books and perhaps the movies as well. There is almost a positive negative comparison.
borchabob		#38	[-]
May 21 10 9:37 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I remember seeing this movie when it came out in theatres and liking it. When I started building my dvd collection I bought it and watched it and thought BORING and took it back and bought something else. I just couldn't understand why I Thought this movie was so boring and why I liked it the first time. Just a couple of weeks ago I'm browsing around the dvd store and I see it again and I decide to give it another try so I get home got a couple of snacks and a drink popped it in the dvd player turned down the lights and I have to say I totally enjoyed the movie. The only thing I can say for my indecisiveness is I have to be in the mood to watch this movie. It does take a long time to build up to the good stuff and the movie does play well psycologicly needless to say it is now a part of my collection.
Saturday8pm		#39	[-]
Sep 11 10 1:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A problematic film. Despite being cast as the father, you just KNOW Oliver Reed has to slip sometime. Rather slow pacing, but that's true to the story. I wonder – if this were a B+W flick created in The '40s, would it enjoy a better reputation? "Lord I love Spring! The birds, the fair weather, the new flowers. It doesn't get any better than this. HOLY CRAP! what's THAT?!?"
Randolph Carter		#40	[-]
Sep 26 10 10:36 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I wanted to watch this movie after seeing it on many folks' top ten list of horror films from the 70's. Unfortunately I was hugely disappointed!! Poor script IMO and what a waste of Karen Black and particularly Bette Davis. (Especially after seeing Davis' great performance in Dark Secret of Harvest Home! She deserved much better than this. )
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Burnt Offerings