|Page 1 of 4:||   |
|Index||39 reviews in total|
A scary 1974 movie with shocking horror scenes that might offend most Christians. These horrific scenes helped to serve the movie.There is exploitation of women as in most Italian Horror movies.It Should Be Rated NC-17 for some explicit content and unseen rare violence. In 1974, it was really rare to see such shocking scenes.For this reason, it was previously banned in many countries.The ban made people more zealous to see and buy this movie out of curiosity. Honestly,it is more horrible and shocking than the Exorcist, but quite as good as the Exorcist.Recommended for those who are 17 years old or above this age. I advise people to buy the DVD and enjoy this great horror movie,especially horror fans who will not regret purchasing this movie. As for religious Christian people,some scenes might shock you,so you got to beware!. For people who can not watch this movie,all you have to do is search for this movie free on line,this is a substitute.You could download it too. Good luck!
I love horror movies but...........not this incompetant nonsense about some possesed woman. No budget, no effects except for a very fake frog death and some wonderful! foam from the womans mouth. Please look out for the floating furniture(WHO FILMED THIS SEQUENCE). Save yourself the trouble and go to the pub instead.
There are exactly two elements in this movie that work. The first is a
well-done special effect of an imploding screen. The second is the choice
to have the saliva of the possessed woman bear an unmistakable resemblance
to... another substance. This becomes the only element of the sexual
subtext that is genuinely unsettling, rather than just unpleasant and
Other than that, this is a poorly-made attempt to rip off "The Exorcist". And by "rip off", I don't mean just that this was a possession movie made to cash in on the popularity of "The Exorcist"; I mean that elements from the Blatty/Friedkin production are copied so shamelessly that it evokes disbelieving laughter at the effrontery.
Sadly, "The Tempter" fails to do what "The Exorcist" did, and give those elements a context that makes sense. The Blatty/Friedkin film remains compelling because it is a mystery; it is not about the shocking visual effects but rather of a truth that no one wants to believe. Every scene contains a clue to the mystery; every clue chips away at civilized denial that such a thing could happen. This movie could actually have gone "The Exorcist" one better, by constructing the same sort of mystery and treating the strong subtext of sexual temptation as a piece of the puzzle and not just a chance for cheap thrills. Instead, this movie is made with the vague notion that projectile vomiting at a priest is boffo box office, baby. "The Exorcist" is clockwork inside and "The Tempter" is just Jell-O.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Dismissing The Antichrist as a rip-off of The Exorcist is too easy.
Sure it was designed to cash-in on The Exorcist's success, but it's not
the first movie to ride the coattails of another movie. Just look at
all the sequels that Jaws spawned (Piranha, Tintotera, Crocodile, etc.)
for an even better example. My problems with The Antichrist have
nothing to do with comparisons to The Exorcist. Instead, I think that
The Antichrist is a mess of a movie on its own.
I suppose that for a movie of this type to be effective, it helps if the audience cares or has some sort of feelings for the characters. Other than the main character, Ippolita Oderisi (Carla Gravina), we never learn enough about them to care what happens to them. As for Ippolita, she's so unlikable that I couldn't have cared less whether she was possessed or not. She's a bitter woman with no redeeming characteristics that I could discern. Even before the possession, she seems to relish making everyone's life miserable. And why should it bother me that she is possessed by the devil? She asked for it literally. So, she got what she wanted. I had no sympathy for this woman, and without that, the movie doesn't work.
There are other problems with The Antichrist beyond whether or not I cared about the main character. The acting is plain old bad. Even somewhat accomplished actors like Mel Ferrer look like their starring in the local amateur hour. In one scene, I swear he looks embarrassed to be anywhere near this film. The only actor of any consequence who comes off with any dignity in tact is Anita Strindberg and that's just because of her limited screen time.
I suppose that I'll leave it at that and not write anymore about the other areas where the movie fails. Writing about everything I had a problem with in The Antichrist is like shooting fish in a barrel. I could target the special effects, a score that's not up to Morricone's high standards, or the cheap attempts to gross-out the audience, but you get the idea.
Ippolita, a sexually frustrated (and fairly unlikeable), wheelchair
bound young woman, feels that she has been forsaken by God. Under the
watchful eye of Dr. Marcello Sinibaldi, she undergoes hypnotic
regression in an attempt to restore her ability to walk. However, when
it is revealed that an ancestor of hers was burnt at the stake as a
devil worshipper, the psychologically fragile Ippolita becomes a prime
candidate for diabolic possession. Cue projectile vomiting, levitation
and blasphemy as director Alberto De Martino ladles on the bargain
basement FX in this pretty poor Exorcist rip-off.
Despite lavish cinematography by Joe D'Amato, an effective Ennio Morricone soundtrack, and a willingness to go the extra mile to upset (most notably in the notorious orgy/ritual scene, in which a goat receives an implied ass tonguing, and a blink-and-you'll-miss-it image of Christ with a huge erect schlong!), L'Anticristo remains a second rate production that bores more than it disturbs.
You would think foul-mouthed, green-puke spitting females with a tendency to float around their room automatically make a film worth watching, but, hampered by leaden pacing and some dreadful effects, De Martino's movie is a chore to sit through.
This filthy and spooky movie concerns about Hipolita (Carla Gravina),
she's a invalid young with unsettling problems from his mother died for
a car crash in an accident along with her father (Mel Ferrer) and then
she resulted paralyzed . She only has understanding for his brother
(Remo Girone) . Her mental problems and intervention a doctor (Umberto
Orsini) lead to an act of possession by an ancestor framed as a witch
by the Inquisition . Eventually she's deeply possessed and starts
seducing a young and other local men only to murder them . Hipolita
becomes possessed and a strange exorcism seems to be the only solution
to stop the craziness and heal the young invalid . An exorcism carried
out by a Father exorcist (George Colouris) results to be the mean to
save her but the events go awry .
This exploitation picture displays eerie horror , witchcraft , grisly killings , bestiality , satanism and lots of blood and gore . Large cast with American actors working in Italy , such as Arthur Kennedy , Mel Ferrer , and George Colouris . Revolting , scary scenes and nasty images take place on orgy scenes with goat included . Packs luxurious scenarios with a lush corridor plenty of sculptures and careful cinematography showing glamorous sets by known Joe DÁmato , though cheesy special effects on the levitation scenes . Creepy and adequate to terror musical score composed by Ennio Morricone and conducted by Bruno Nicolai . The motion picture was regularly directed by Alberto De Martino . He's an Italian craftsman , working from the 60s in all kind of genres and B movies . As he directed Peplum (Secret seven , Spartan gladiators , Invincible gladiator , Valley of stone men) , Spaghetti Western (Django shoots first , Providence , Charge of seven cavalry) , Warlike (Dirty heroes) , European spy genre (OK Connery , Operation Lady Chaplin) , and Terror (Miami Golem , Horror , Holocaust 2000) , among others.
When I went in the video store to look for a horror video I found this piece of flop that unfortunately blew me away with the words "the best special effects" and I decided to give it a try. Boy was I wrong! This movie was more laughable with it's "special effects" than scary. I could just imagine the poorly paid crew and staff pushing furniture across the floor and moving paintings on the other side of the wall in the midst of a demonic presence. A handicaped woman who looses her handicaped during her demonic attacks suddenly becomes a tool for Satan and all we see is poor acting and laughable hallucinations borrowed from movies such as "Rosemary's Baby", "Exorcist" and numerous other titles that tried to copy them as well. This is one of the worst of demonic horror movies that I have seen; slobbering all over herself like she has rabies and the mocking of sexual scenes with the Devil. Give me a break.
After reading so many positive reviews to this awful stinker, I was compelled to set the record straight, this is a boring movie. It has nothing to offer, no scares, no special effects, only laughs and disgust. After wasting about 1 hour in a mind numbing rehash of "what is mentally wrong with her?" dialogue, the devil possession finally ensues and it is entirely boring. Its quite obvious that everything was outright plagerized from the superior "Exorcist", only proving that the Italians can not make anything resembling a decent picture in the same vein. The lead actress is weak, a cry baby and all she does is walk around like a spoiled child. The father, even worse, and I won't mention the stupid brother who has incestuous relations with his sister. In all, avoid this and don't bother like I did, expecting something worth a few scares.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Possible minor spoilers.
This sleazy Italian Exorcist rip-off is nothing if not weird. After a credits sequence that wallops us with the title not once but TWICE, we meet bitter, wheelchair-bound Ippolita Oderisi (Carla Gravina). After undergoing regressive hypnosis, she becomes possessed by the devil, grabs her crotch, vomits, attacks people, and performs various other antisocial acts. Toads are decapitated, green puke is consumed ("Lick it!"), and Ippolita's sex drive hits warp speed. Then, with a Rosemary's Baby transition, we are presented with the infamous "Orgy in Hell"--apparently hell is a misty purple forest where blue-skinned people have choreographed sex. So it's time to call in the exorcist...and another...and another...and Alida Valli, too!
The Tempter really isn't as bad as some would have it. It's not a great movie, but it's compellingly audacious, with a few visual flourishes (note the Argento-style red wall). The plot structure is sometimes confusing, as certain scenes appear to repeat (especially when Ippolita wears the same hideously ugly dress to dinner twice). A lot of the visual effects seem to be back-projected and look rather odd, and the makeups are quite effective. One highlight of the film is the hilarious dubbed obscenities spewed at every turn ("She is a big whore, your niece!"); one wonders how many liberties the translators were taking.
This solid stomach-turner--which many say was actually the first blatant Exorcist rip-off--is worth seeing for trashfiends. Yes, it's derivative and sometimes silly, but not without entertainment value and some originality. Some parts are actually pretty tense and scary. Keep an open mind, and you may enjoy this oh-so-Italian sexual scuzzball.
Alberto de Martino is an Italian director who likes to rip-off big box
office hits from America and England. He borrowed from the Bond movies for
his spy flick Operation Kid Brother; he borrowed from The Omen for his
dreadful Holocaust 2000. The Tempter (a.k.a The Antichrist or L'Anticristo)
was made in between the other two movies I've just mentioned, and is
Martino's inevitable plagiarism of The Exorcist. What's extraordinary is
that good professional actors like Carla Gravani, Mel Ferrer, George
Coulouris and Arthur Kennedy (yes, the Yankee reporter from Lawrence Of
Arabia!) were persuaded to slum it in a shambolic production like
Gravani plays Ipolatta, a young wheelchair-bound woman who demonstrates psychic abilities. A psychiatrist persuades her to try out regressive hypnotism to cure her disability; she agrees to give it a try, but inadvertently unlocks memories from a previous life in which she was burnt at the stake for satanism. To make matters worse, she is also possessed by the devil and becomes a foul-mouthed, vomit spouting, sexually hungry bitch! An exorcist (Coulouris) is brought in to rid her of the demon within.
The Exorcist was one of the scariest films ever made, but this dismal clone is just tasteless and boring. The bouts of sex are purely there to give the film a degree of appeal to adolescents who get aroused by the possibility of a glimpse of tit. They certainly don't add to the atmosphere of the film. The so-called horror sequences are rendered hopelessly laughable by pitiful special effects. Still, the image of a toad having its head torn off and a woman performing oral sex on a goat's anus is enough to put you off your lunch for a day or two, and Gravani frequently lapses into revolting drooling which looks (intentionally?) like semen. If that's the kind of imagery which floats your boat, you might enjoy this. However, most viewers (myself among them) will be rightly repelled by this stupid potboiler and will find it a real challenge to sit through.
|Page 1 of 4:||   |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|