Red Serpent - 2003

It is rare I guess a movie's year and I am off by 10 years. I guessed 1993. Mind you, I wanted to guess earlier. Cuz this looks that shitty.

Red Serpent stars Roy Scheider in a small role and Michael Pare as the main action hero. Michael Pare has aged well, considering the last thing I saw him in was from the 80's. Roy Scheider is some mob boss and this movie takes place in Russia where Pare's daughter is kidnapped by the Russian mob.

As I watched this, I had a few thoughts. Number one, this is so bad it's good territory. Whenever there is a plot move it feels boring and stupid, but the action scenes, the acting, and the sex scenes are so fucking stupid and poorly done they are laughable, and I mean I did actually laugh. There is a sex scene with Scheider on a pool table, the explosions and the gun shots look retarded, this movie is so bad it's practically mocking itself, yet it is stunning un-self-aware.

The pacing can't quite keep up so it's a bit uneven but the movie ends out in a favorable fashion and if you had a couple drinks like me, you'll enjoy yourself for the plentiful stupid, poorly done moments. 3.5 stars.

Freddy vs. Jason - 2003

At some point in the blog history I was going to stay away from the more known movies in general, but if I had something I wanted to say I'd break that rule and write about it anyways. I did this first with some still slightly under the radar and/or new releases. But I am a fan of the big horror franchises as well, and I've always liked to have their knowledge in my head.

I went through most of the Freddy and the Jason movies in this blog. Part of this is that every few years I get it into me to rewatch these series. Halloween as well. I got into Paul Rust and Matt Gourley's lovely podcast which first tackled Friday the 13th, then Halloween, then Nightmare on Elm Street. This got me really in the mood to see at least one of these films, and I had seen Jason X recently in the blog so fuck it. Haven't seen it since the theater, might as well rewatch Freddy vs Jason.

What do I remember? Surprisingly I remember a lot. First of all, I remember this being a big deal that it was happening, and two years later we got Alien vs Predator. Freddy vs Jason was a big deal that people talked about, I was in high school so right in the demographic and my friends were hella interested in this. I hadn't seen many of the films at this point in life. I had seen the first Nightmare film and likely several of the Friday films, but I was still in my film nerd phase where I thought I was better than that and I only watched "good" movies.

Freddy vs Jason has Freddy being near forgotten in the beginning, and using some last bit of power to raise Jason from the dead to go to Freddy's old neighborhood and kill people. Freddy thinks that if bodies start piling up by Freddy's old house that people will start talking about him regardless of who is actually killing. Jason soon enough kills a kid that Freddy is after, and Freddy is pissed off. Meanwhile some kids who know of Freddy escape from a asylum and start raising talk of Freddy, making him grow more powerful from the fear instilled.

It's a long paragraph and a lot of plot but basically it's "let's find a reason to have them fight". Directed by later Chucky director Ronny Yu, we have what amounts to two large fight scenes between the villians. First, Jason is asleep and faces Freddy in Freddy's nightmare land where Freddy has the advantage. Then, a girl pulls Freddy into the real world and Jason and Freddy fight at Camp Crystal Lake, Jason's advantage.

The side characters are all fine, the effects are great, the fights are fun and there's some good original ideas present. I will say, I thought it would have been better if they'd restated some of the basic rules of Freddy. I didn't remember what exactly happens he is brought to the real world for example.

Anyways, there's tons of nudity, there's excessive blood and guts, there's enough of a story for it to make sense, and the things all chug along just fine. I remember when I first saw it thinking they needed to fight more. This time, I thought the same thing. It's quite even, and I guess they didn't want to make there be too obvious of a winner. So I think that's why there's not more of the fight. Anyways I guess it's enough. I dunno. It doesn't mean this is a perfect film. And I think the lack of any true follow up or big cult following means the audience didn't quite get what they wanted. It's about a 3 star affair.

Under Milk Wood - 1972

Wow, I guessed 1980s! I should've known with Burton and Taylor, but I dunno...

Under Milk Wood is a radio drama translated to stage and now screen, starring lovers Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor.

As I watched this film I began to wonder, what in the fuck am I watching. To say that it is poetic is an understatement, to say it's expressive is minimalism, to say it is clear is an outright lie. This movie is bordering the later self-aware type overly expressive amateur type film that honestly I haven't seen in any era.

In the film, you might be treated to lingering shots of a man staring longingly at somebody or something with a voice-over describing anything from a cooking recipe to his innermost thoughts and dreams. Cut to a goat walking along the path and a woman narrating her lover's stamp collection. This type of inarticulate, unattached, and unconnected series of events is what Under Milk Wood is all about.

Given this, you get what you expect. Parts of it are great, parts of it are tedious and shrug-worthy. There is some deeply intense content, as well as fluff not even worthy of minute consideration. There is a erotiscism and sexuality, next to scenes of soup making and mudpies.

Milk Wood reminds me of Tarkovsky in the ponderous open nature of the film, and in that poetic freedom I really liked its approach. What I got from the film, I really don't know. At least it was short. It did border on annoying at times, but overall I think it's worth seeing. Great early experimentalism at least.

Alien Predator - 1986

Look at the title to this and tell me it's not dirt cheap. Can you? I don't think so. It was also known as The Falling and Mutant 2.

Alien Predator is a two bit ripoff of Alien made shortly after it came out. With a tenth of the budget and a tenth of the talent, some random people made a small scale alien-ish film.

What do you do to ripoff Alien? With no money? Well, set it on Earth instead of in space and have the people be the scary creatures, because you have no budget for an Alien costume.

Yes, in this the people are given the alien spores and it causes them to go crazy and become killers. That is the plot, and three friends are in a town full of gestating aliens.

Alien Predator is extremely amateur, the kind that is so bad it's great, the kind that is also so bad it's really bad. This movie is extremely shitty in all the good and bad ways, except it doesn't have any of the nudity or fun parts that are usually required. That said I really still enjoyed it and I think it would be great for bad movie night.

What it comes down to in the end is you'll know exactly what you're getting into from the first few minutes, and if you like the first few minutes or if you chuckle, you'll enjoy the movie.

The Devil's Nightmare - 1971

Other titles: 'The Devil's Longest Night', and in Italy as La terrificante notte del demonio (lit. 'The Terrifying Night of the Demon'). It was also known as The Devil Walks at Midnight.

As I said in The Devil's Possessed, is it scarier to say the Devil is having a possession or a nightmare or something else? Isn't it enough that it's just SATAN and that's supposed to be scary enough? Also, is there a movie called "The Satan's Satan" or "The Devil's Satan"? Double stumped the internet again fool.

The Devil's Nightmare is one of many interchangable, forgettable titles on this boxset. but, this movie is not. First of all, it's been a while but finally we get some nice nudity back and we get a nice long, hot lesbian scene. Honestly, I'm really surprised this set didn't have more of the sleazy 70s erotica going on, especially since these were all films from Europe.

In the beginning we have a few people coming to....can you guess... a huge creepy castle somewhere obviously. It's not a competition to stay the night this time, instead they're just staying over in the castle. Enter the creepy residents, including the lesbian seductress. What they're after? Um, shit I don't remember. Maybe I never knew? All I could tell ya was that the plot revolved around a Succubus, and she seduces people left and right in her evil ploy.

People end up dying and creepy shit happens, but this is first and foremost a softcore flick for me. I thoroughly enjoyed that part. But it was perhaps 15-20 minutes overly long and felt a bit clunky in some areas. I'll give it a 3.5.

Grave of the Vampire - 1973

In the beginning of Grave of the Vasmpire, a undead ghoul rises from the grave and creeps up on a couple who's making it at the graveyard. Why are teens always doin' it in places like this anyways?

I guessed 1972 which is also the year I most commonly guess for these 70s type fare, then I second guessed myself and put 1973, only for the film to have actually been from 1972. FUCK!

Anyways, the ghoul creeps up and kills the dude and rapes the woman. Promising beginning? We follow the woman as she keeps the baby despite a doctor saying she is impregnated with a demon, an undead thing. She gives birth to a unnaturally grey baby who wants to drink blood instead of milk. So, I'm enjoying the first 20 minutes of this in other words.

Grave of the Vampire then flashed forward about 20 something years and now the baby is a full grown adult, a long haired suave motherfucker who is in a class studying the occult. The teacher is a Cameron Mitchell looking motherfucker, and he is all into the undead and vampires etc. Our grown up evil baby is in the class and asks about the undead creature that raped his mom, and soon enough the teacher is exposed to be that very same creature, living covertly amongst the students....

This movie was something else. It was slightly unbalanced to be certain, with large chucks of the middle and the later half pondering around wondering what will happen next. But there's also kick ass moments in the beginning middle and end, and all in all I suppose it evens out.

I kinda wish the beginning and a few other things had been explained, but fuck it. This is a true 70s schlock fest you could drink or smoke to or just enjoy sober like me. I'll give it 4 stars.

The Vampires Night Orgy - 1974

Leon Klimovsky is not exactly a household name and yet browsing his IMDb he has directed a lot of horror, and has appeared several times on this blog. He also recently did Doctor Jekyll and the Werewolf and the Devil's Possessed. I mean at this point he could be called "friend of the blog".

Putting in links sucks now with the new blogger interface. That's all.

So shit, these movies seem to rank all over the place for me. This one will follow suit. Basically, you have a group of tourists coming to a small town and discovering that all the residents of this town are vampires. Great idea, sure. There is some atmosphere, and the ending was pretty cool as they are trying to escape the town. Unfortunately there is a lot of talking and nothingness in the padding of the film, the bloated middle section feels like it takes forever.

There is no orgy in the film in the sexual sense, but there is scant nudity and we get a bit of blood and guts. Whole lots of flashing fangs and other stuff happening. I dunno, I was a bit drunk and my ear infection made it so that I didn't hear what the people were saying a lot. I might rewatch this one. For now I'll give it three stars.

Point of Terror - 1971

I've watched very few of the Pure Terror films while drunk. I went for two months without drinking and I'm intermittenly doing it right now as well. Gotta be healthy, right? I also have an ear infection and I'm taking antibiotics, so it's best not to drink.

All that said, I was a bit loaded while I watched Point of Terror last night. This is a prime 70's movie, and I just don't get tired of seeing the bell bottoms, the huge collars, the elaborate costume designs. It's so great. Lets start off with the drunken thoughts I had during watching:

Is it weird that I watch a '70s movie and I think, they used to tuck in their shirts a different way?

This guy is shirtless a lot. You want to talk about gender equality in films? This guy is topless a lot more than any woman in this film.

Writer, producer, and main star Peter Carpenter was from Oakland, California. He had not been around long, and this is one of only 4 movies he acted in. He is a mystery actor, as IMDb lists his death in 1996 but other things point to the 70's as his time of demise. There's a whole blog entry about it here.

All this aside, he's not a great actor and this part is written as if it's trying to show how great he is. There is the above thought about how he's shirtless for most of the movie, and there's a few songs sung by him in the movie, and he beds a lot of women, constantly every girl is after him. It's all pretty stupid as you can imagine, and this movie in general is fucking dumb. I didn't like it.

Wikipedia tells me it is a "erotic drama" and I'm like, is it though? It's not dramatic and it's not especially erotic unless you're really into uncharismatic bland men. Who aren't great singers. Who aren't funny. Who aren't interesting. Who think they are all this and more.

Also, there is a supposed threat of murder at one point and a few people die sorta, but all in all it's one of the least staying true to the "Pure Horror" name of the set so far. A bullshit cop out ending didn't help either.

It's not like a zero star movie but I'm not giving it any higher than a 2.

Green Eyes - 1934

A body! Stabbed in the back! A house full of suspects! Oh golly!

That is the plot to Green Eyes, a title which I don't know why it is called that. Green Eyes is a murder mystery whodunnit with a house full of "entrigue" and "mystery" when really there isn't much to speak of. I might be too hard of this being that it is 1934, and one of the oldest films I've reviewed for a while. For sure the oldest movie on any of these DVD boxsets I've watched recently.

We follow Inspector Crofton as he suspects Jean, Bill, Steven, Cliff, whatever...whoever...there's a lot of people here to suspect. They all have holes in their story, they all have partial theories and partial explanations. They all have reasons or non-reasons to kill the dead man. A few more deaths happen, a supposed suicide, you get it. There's the other plot synopsis here: "a body turns up. you get it."

Green Eyes might be classic in the strickest sense, but that doesn't mean I liked it. I'll give it like 2 stars I guess.

The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave - 1971

Wikipedia: "It was released theatrically in the United States on 26 July 1972 as The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave. When shown theatrically in the United States, it was distributed with such gimmicks as theaters serving 'bloodcorn', popcorn that had been dyed red. Several versions of the film circulated which were often edited and/or re-edited, such as the television version titled Evelyn Raises the Dead."
"AllMovie wrote 'The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave might make acceptable fodder for giallo fans but isn't as memorable as its reputation suggests.' In his essay Danse Macabre, author Stephen King described the film as an 'Italian turkey'"

The Night Evelyn... whatever, I'm not putting the whole title. Evelyn is a early 70's Italian schlock horror with all the ingredients one needs. Tons of nudity, to the point where it's basically a softcore flick, ghosts, paintings, weirdness, anf of course, slow as shit plot movement.

I put this one on, and wheeeeew it takes a while. I was a bit distracted for part, and I also had started it before apparently, because parts seemed quite familiar. In the beginning a mental patient escapes a ward, and then we cut to some house where a dude is torturing women in a BDSM dungeon. Fucking hot. Then, random shit happens and it's basically some Italian guy who is scared of his wife's ghost because he likely killed her. What this all has to do with the mental patient and the BDSM is beyond me, and anyways the movie keeps going on there's foxes and deaths and lots of tits, but despite all this it's all decidedly bland somehow.

That's the short of this movie. It has a lot, A LOT, which could make it interesting, but it somehow isn't. I was mildly entertained, but there's too much going on and I didn't understand, and additionally I didn't care to. 2.5 stars for the horror and the nudity when it's happening and you're into it briefly.

Fangs of the Living Dead - 1969

I laid in bed sick and tired trying to escape into a horror movie, only to have the internet shit out on me. I was trying to watch The Ghost in the Galleon, a later entry Italian horror film by Amando de Ossorio. When it didn't work, I went to the other TV and watched this, not knowing they were the same director. Weird, man.

Also known as Malenka, the Vampire's Niece. Fangs was a much better name.

Anita Ekberg was a well known horror queen and almost a Bond girl. She had a career that went all over the place and she has a lot of entries in the horror genre. She's been on this blog before and countless others I'm sure, as she is quite hot and often nude.

Anita plays Malenka or Sylvia in the English dub. She comes to some giant gothic castle that the locals fear because her uncle lives there. Everyone in town is right about this place, they avoid it for a reason. There's vampires, as we soon discover, and her uncle also speaks of "the Nosferatu". When Sylvia discovers her brother and another woman there are both vampires, she'll have to face her fears and also risk them trying to convince her to become like them.

I wanted cheap Italian schlock with nudity and effects, and of course, I didn't get it. It was 1969, and I should've gotten it. But, I dunno if I was watching a censored version or if Amando was one of those not to "go there" in his films, either way this film had none of that adult-y type stuff. Which leaves you watching...People! Talking! Walking around!

There is a lot of leg and cleavage, so they even tease you. I dunno bro. This wasn't my speed. It was dull, it was empty, it was bland. At the end, there's been so little horror besides the obvious "presence of vampire horror" that I began to wonder, "Is this movie a drama?" I mean really, it's not a fucking horror movie. It is a dramatic movie with horror elements. But shit, replace those fangs with something else and this movie is a straight drama, and a bad one at that.

Fangs is a lifeless, dulled knife that should be scary cuz it's a knife right, but then you grab it and realize it's cardboard.

It Happened at Nightmare Inn - 1971

Also known as "A Candle for the Devil", It Happened at Nightmare Inn was next on the set. I turned on the barely 65 minute movie in the morning and watched it while I got dressed, made coffee, cleaned the cabin, and generally did shit. Whatever, it counts.

Nightmare Inn is a hotel where the main actress comes at the beginning of this decidedly average film. This young girl is looking for a friend of hers that stayed in Spain at this hotel, and since has gone missing. The two hotel staff know something they're not sharing, and soon enough via flashback and via investigation, our plucky heroine uncovers the truth...

Not sure what to say about this one. With some better writing or with something else like that the idea certainly could have had interest factors. But, it instead sorta just lays there limp the entire time. No nudity, no blood, no real thrill either since from minute 3 we know exactly what will happen.

I wasn't sure if there would be a plot twist or another character added as a side story. There wasn't. Hence the short length, and one could complain about lack of development. I won't complain. Helped the movie stay short! I'll give it one star.

Manos: The Hands of Fate - 1966

There's a history of me and Manos, as is the case with probably every MST3K fan. I first saw Manos as an episode in....oh, I dunno, 2005? I'm guessing randomly? It was never my favorite MST3K episode as I felt that it was overrated and average at best. The movie part of it, Manos, seemed like a lot of the shit they did so it didn't stick out to me too much. Kudos to those guys: They really could make anything funny.

This is the first attempt I've ever made to watch Manos without the riffing. Different from Pod People, which is one of my favorites of MST3K, I knew I could watch Manos sans riffing and it'd be fine. This is an episode of that show which I used to put on if I wanted to fall asleep. It was a "secret weapon" in that regard.

Manos exists as the sole film made by Texas businessman Harold P. Warren. He supposedly took part in a bet that he could make a horror film, was part of a local acting scene, and said "fuck it I'll make a movie" and self financed it. Manos is amateur to the very definition, and as I watched it I did think, this has to be one of the most amateur films to exist, ever.

Manos is a bevy of questions. I suppose that's why it's so loved, talked about, and why it is a fan favorite. You have to, HAVE TO wonder about the choices made by the direction, the acting, the camerawork, the soundtrack, everything about it. Let me first give a very brief synopsis to what is a 65 minute movie.

Mike, his wife and daughter are driving long, get lost, and end up at a mystery building in the desert. They are greeted by the oddball caretaker Torgo, a twitchy and nervous man with enlarged thighs and knees(?!) Torgo expresses doubt about them being there, saying that "the master" would not approve, but conditions make the family stay. Soon enough, they meet the master and his harem of wives, and get thrown into a sinister ritual in this mystery spot.

But what the plot doesn't say is the rank, bizarre, shoddy isn't a strong enough word pure what the fuck nature of this movie. Whether it's the lingering shots of absolutely nothing happening, the terrible dialogue, the repetition of dialogue many MANY times with no explanation, or the lack of what I would call "a clear plot, story, character explanation or ANYTHING" this movie simply breaks all the established rules that have existed and will ever exist in film.

In the beginning of the film, I had a moment of questioning because it struck me that Torgo is actually made out to be a very sympathetic character. His many odd behaviors are never explained, but his motivation is, and it is probably the only clear motivation for anything in the entire film so it stands out. He wants a wife. Then, he is sentenced to death, or rather, bizarre slapping punishment, and he gets his hand burned off and simply runs away, meaning Torgo survives this film.

Later on, the Master is front and center as the main heavy in the film, and he's not a terrible actor but the script is terrible and there is never a hint as to a explanation for anything about him. The Master exemplifies one of the biggest takeaways of the entire film for me, which is:

They had no idea what they were doing. When there is a cut, when the plot takes a turn, you can practically hear the director, the actors, and maybe the best boy all sitting around, pitching ideas of what would be "cool" or "scary" if it happened next. You can feel the improvised nature of the film, the way they just sorta thought, "let's throw in a scene where the women fight, cause that would be funny right?" So, they turned on the camera and filmed it. Two minutes later "Cut! How about your character says 'Manos would be displeased' here?" It was all made up on the spot in other words, and it really fucking feels like it.

Manos is the epitome of what a true amateur experiment is. This is the type of film where I think almost anyone on the planet would say "I could do something better than that". It is laughably short and laughably long at the same time, as certain moments feel like they last an eternity. The only way it could be more amateur is if they literally didn't know how to turn the camera on, and then it wouldn't exist.

Manos is the type of film you watch and you know it is something else. It has a bizarre quality, and overall, I think the best thing about it is it's strange plot. If it was more straight and narrow about a killer or some shit, it would not be so compelling. I think one of the unspoken great things about this movie is that to me, it feels ahead of it's time because of the plot. The plot is straight out of a 70s film, take it from the expert: me. This is a forerunner to what would be later known and celebrated as "psychotronic film".

The experimentation of this and the bizarreness of the plot fits more in congruity with the 70s weirdness and experimentation of the decade, and in a way this is one of the few things I've seen which proceeds the type of film coming up in the next decade. Had this come out in 1976, for example, I do not think it would stand out so much. I think it would be another 70's "exploitation" flick and would be very forgotten.

Just another example of how this movie, despite everything, succeeds.

Manos: The Hands of Fate has a legacy, and that is one thing I struggle with. I wanted to go through all the movies on all three other sets and try to determine if any of them have a "legacy". There's plenty of cult films on the sets, but I think the closest would be They Saved Hitler's Brain, Slipstream, mayyyybe Abraxas? But nothing like this. Nothing else comes close to what this has: a fan funded documentary and two fan funded sequels. I intend on seeing none of these. Let the fucking thing stand on it's own!

I really don't know how to rate this one. As a film, it's not good. As an experience, it is great. It's very hard for me to separate the MST3K of it from the film, and the memories I have of the film from the film itself. I will land on 4 stars I think, and I will say: I don't think I'll ever watch this again without riffing.

The Oval Portrait - 1972

Did not know I had a Edgar Allen Poe double dip on this Pure Terror boxset. I hadn't read this story, nor head I heard of it before in the Poe pantheon (the Poentheon?)

The Oval Portrain was apparently a two page short story that Poe wrote. You guys really think a two PAGE source material is enough to base a 90 minute movie on? You're confident about that idea, are ya? Wow, well, ok then.

This movie is also known as One Minute Before Death, and is the story of a woman coming to a house she hasn't been to before and uncovering the strangeness happening there. It wildly deviates from the original story, which I just read a plot synopsis of. Edgar Allen Poe's original story is of a painter who was so focused on painting his wife he doesn't notice she is dead.

In the movie, instead of that cincise and macabre idea, we get endless scenes of women gossiping, men in long coats looking perturbed, and plenty of lingering shots of the titular Oval portrait. The portrait itself is quite good, very lifelike as it was in the original short story. The actual plot revolved around this new woman getting possessed, sort of, by the ghost of the dead woman in the painting. Another decent idea. But, this is so paintfully dull and slow and who-cares and it doesn't succeed in this plot either.

So where does this succeed? I dunno, I guess it doesn't. It goes, things happen, and I was insanely bored for the most of it. I stuck with it but fast forwarded towards the end, which is addittedly when the movie gets a bit better. Not much though. Tooooo slow, too blah, too whatever, I give it no stars.

Monstroid - 1980

I previously watched this for the blog under the name Monster. I thought as I watched it that the monster seemed familiar. and yup I was right. seen it before.

Monster stars John Carradine, a B movie king and someone I'd have expected to be in this blog a lot more. I don't think the entire 70s or 80s set had him at all. He is a king of schlock, and according to my brief research he was present in the beginnings of this blog more, and recently his brother Keith has actually been in more movies I've seen. He's in a small role as a religious guy in a town near a lake where a lake monster dwells.

In my previous review, I talked about this as if I didn't enjoy it. I knocked the lack of a cental character, and the cheap effects. There is truly a lack of characters in this movie. We follow a young woman mostly and she's not in the movie very much. Once the monster is unvelied and being hunted, we have a few main heroes, but they're critically underwritten.

Aside from that I really liked the beginning of this and I like the monster itself. Last time I gave this two stars and I think this time I will go up at least one star. Is all very average and it's all been done before but it was ahead pf it's time, considering it was actually filmed closer to 1971.

The helicopter and the 70s clothes was a lot of fun to see, I'm just enjoying watching movies from the 70s right now, so I'm in my own little personal heaven. Fuck it I'll give this movie 3 stars.

Eerie Midnight Horror Show - 1974

also known as: L'ossessa, Enter the Devil, The Sexorcist.

Producer 1: What is big in the US?
Producer 2: The Exorcist is huge!
1: Great let's copy it.
2: For sure. Let's make a cheap Italian version.
1: Right. Except, we have to sex it up. Add lots of nudity and tittilate the audience.
2: I'm definitely into that.
1: So we begin with a woman having sex with a statue!
2: Eh... come again?
1: Exactly! Sexy psuedo rape scene in the first 20 minutes to really hook the audience.
2: But with a statue?
1: Then that launches a series of weird cut aways to random flashbacks and other scenes that will never connect to anything!
2: But why do that?
1: They'll be atmospheric and cool so it doesn't matter.
2: Well, ok sure. But what about the statue, does that come back?
1: It was a statue of Jesus. Except it was Satan. And then Satan gives the woman stigmata!
2: So Satan took the form of a Jesus statue and then gave stigmata to further confuse exactly what side he is on?
1: I dunno. I guess. Either way, there won't be any more nudity at this point either.
2: What? The audience liked the nudity!
1: Yeah but instead we have to slow the film down and tease the exorcism scene.
2: Tease it?
1: Yeah. Priest arrives and sees the girl but doesn't do the exorcism.
2: Why not?
1: We never explain.
2: Umm, ok...
1: But then he comes back and does it and the movie ends. You in?
2: ....Fuck it. Pour me another scotch.