andymclennan

Where to start with this utter disaster?

I'll go with the acting as the main culprit, which amateur theatrical society did they find this bunch in?

Truly horrible, with the cast ranging from just plain dull to raving, cringeworthy overacting stupidity.

Then there's the directing, it feels like an amateur director was given a handful of cash (not much by the looks of it) and told to "just do his best" with a laughably bad script.

Why they ever decided to drag this mess out for two and a half hours is a mystery to me.

I liked the original and the three other more recent movies, some more than others, but this is obviously just an attempt to cash in on their success.

Quite interesting in that there's some material I haven't seen before , various interviews, news items etc.

The bad bits: the narrator/voiceover sounds amateurish.

C'mon, it wouldn't have taken too much to hire someone decent to do it.

Secondly - and this is the lazy bit - there are lots of clips, interviews and old news items with varying aspect ratios that they didn't bother to correct, resulting in stretched images.

Even the most basic editing software caters for this so there's no excuse and it looks shoddy.

Worth a watch for Exorcist fans but there are many better documentaries about the film.

Starts out promisingly, (though the very first scene is unnecessary nonsense), as we hear O'Bannon's story, how the script evolved and how we almost ended up with a Corman movie. Then we move on to Ridley Scott and how he salvaged Giger's input.

Then it goes totally off track with some pseudo-intellectuals over-thinking things and making utterly ridiculous allegations about the film's intent.

If you like watching pretentious twaddle, stick around for the second half, otherwise do yourself a favour and just enjoy the first half.