I actually saw this in the pictures back in the 1960s. Truly scary except
for the man dressed as an eagle bursting through the brick wall - the audience
simply burst out laughing! Not quite as obvious on the small screen.
[deleted]
I saw the string, but didn't notice there was a man in a bird suit! Regardless, I thought that whole sequence was really cool. Just watched this streaming on Netflix...
shareThis is such a cool movie! And the eagle attack was cleverly done, you get so into it that it looks absolutely real. It's both funny and exciting! This is probably where the inspiration for a certain scene in Robocop came from.
shareYou're either not terribly perceptive or else your memory is faulty. The scene of which you speak does NOT contain a man in an eagle suit. It is accomplished by the use of a real eagle on a miniature set and accomplished exquisitely, as far as I'm concerned. It is, without question, one of the most striking, powerful scenes in all of 60's horror. The only laughable thing is your lack of discernment.
shareI am watching it right now on my DVR, and I gotta say, it looked pretty damn real on my tv, and well done. The previous poster did say it wasn't as obvious on a tv, as opposed to a theater, and I don't know anything about the production, but at first viewing I'd tend to agree with you, Nemesis.
'Sanctity Of Life'. You believe in it? Personally, I think it's a bunch of s**t.
I just read the Trivia section of this film's IMDB entry, and it claims that for just a few initial frames, what is actually filmed is an eagle hand-puppet being punched thru a fake little door. After this quick instant, the film cuts to an actual eagle entering a hallway miniature.
However they did it, I find the sequence rather effectively done (as seen on TV).
Matthew
He also said it was a brick wall when it was a door. It looked very real for the year filmed. No outlines from rear projection work, or mattes, it looked perfect. And I can't imagine anyone thinking it was funny.
shareMy family saw this in the theater, and we watch it every time it's shown. I'm watching it right now on TCM and am taping it, too. I'm sure I have a copy somewhere, but I don't recall if it's letterboxed, as it is tonight.
I don't believe for one second that "your" audience laughed at this movie! I've heard others claim such a thing on other forums. Back then, people didn't look for reasons to ridicule films as they do today in a desperate attempt to seem clever and/or blase. I don't believe that a Sixties audience would respond that way, especially a scene done as well as this one. I doubt your senses if you thought it was a man in a bird suit. That would make me laugh~at you.
*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***
This movie is really cool. I did notice the string and I did laugh at the sound effects for the eagle. In the 60's I would have been scared tonight it's scary fun, especially the end. Did the devil take a soul he was due?
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
[deleted]
It was intense when I first saw it, but now it didn't scare me. Not after Jurrassic Park or Godzilla movies (better sound effects). However, this is one of the best movies about witches.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
I have long been a fan of this film and a giant eagle outdoors, with its wings up, swooping down is frightening. However, a giant eagle indoors, with its wings down and hopping around is not.
I got a similar reaction to the one described by the first poster during the late '70s when I screened a 16mm print for an audience of friends.
The shattering door works, as does the giant shadow of flapping wings at the junction of the corridors. But, in my opinion, the rest of the sequence with the eagle lumbering through the scaled-down model of a college corridor - however well
constructed - does not work. It might have worked better if the set/model had been in near-darkness. As it stands, the scene is carried by a convincingly terrified Peter Wyngarde.
I may be wrong, but I suspect this ineffective footage was left in the final cut because of the expense and trouble it must have taken to achieve it. The editor simply wasn't ruthless enough!
how ridiculous, 1bilbo...
Enrique Sanchez