Village of the Damned (slight spoiler)

[jbuck_919]

I don't dislike the newer version of this with Christopher Reeve, but the old one with George Sanders is a horror classic. Its only problem is the exaggerated title (the book was called The Midwich Cuckoos, referring to the fact that every female animal got pregnant that day). Any thoughts to share on this chiller?

[thebloodfeaster]

I've seen the newer version and I just thought it was average. I should check out the old one though.

[jbuck_919]

I'm going to assume that everyone knows the basic plot line here, so if you don't, stop, because a few things (not the ending) will be given away.

First, George Sanders could act rings around Christopher Reeve. Second, there is a plot twist in the second film that actually makes it inferior to the first. Third, things are made explicit in the second film that are only implied in the first, and implied awful stuff is of the essesnce of horror.

Finally, check out the "chief child" in the original film. He is so scary that I wonder if he was not a sociopath in real life.

[Cushing]

A real classic . The original version of this film is near perfect . The setting is ideal and all the actors are first class . I enjoyed the remake but nothing more .

[Asokan]

The original was a pretty decent scary movie with a wonderfully morbid atmosphere created by this weird acting children.

Generally children are weird, think and see the world differently and most of them are just pains-in-the-asses, but these kids were unsettling because of their soulless perfection. Creepy.

The remake was unnecessary and another bad choice for John Carpenter, who made far inferior movies before and after. It's actually quite watchable despite stiff performances by a weak cast and a unimaginative script.

See the original (not a real must-see, but worthy), but don't mind the remake.

[jbuck_919]

I really hate this flat mode and would post here much more often if they had threads like IMDb.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just amplifying.

The second version made explicit what the original only made implicit. For example, in the first version, they agree not to bring in the military because the children would only make them shoot themselves. In the second version, that is exactly what happens. In the first version Sanders has to sacrifice himself to save the world from these kids. In the first, the mother dies very early on from the direct action of her own child.

The key to good horror is that something supernatural lies beneath the surface that is only hinted at and only surfaces at the end. That's why Rosemary's Baby is my favorite horror film. It distinguishes horror from the thriller on the one hand and the monster movie on the other.

Have you ever wondered whether the boy who played the son in the first version of this movie survived to normal adulthood? Making a child act that way could not have done him any good.

[BoyScoutKevin]

The boy's name is Martin Stephens. I presume so, since I can't find a death date for him, and he would only be 55 this year, since he was born in 1948. Though, it is hard to tell, as he apparently hasn't done anything since 1966's "The Witches."
If you liked him in "Village of the Damned," then check him out in 1961's "The Innocents" w/ Deborah Kerr. Probably the best screen version of Henry James' "The Turn of the Screw." Enjoy!

[jbuck_919]

Of course I could have looked up that "boy" in IMDb, but you shocked me by noting that his other juvenile role was in Turn of the Screw. I'm sure I saw it years ago, but have little memory of it (I remember the James story very well). It doesn't give me much comfort that he played a possessed kid a second time. Gives me visions of him and Keir Dullea living as older and younger brother in a haunted house. Thanks for your reply.

[Cronos]

remake is great