Clear...yes.
But will it be widescreen at 2.35 or a 1.33 pan and scan transfer from the 80's?
TCM will reveal all soon. Their website does not indicate a letterbox showing, but ya just never know til it airs.
Damn it!
It's not in widescreen!
Come on TCM Underground, get your act together.
I hate watching the 1.33:1 version of a film that was shot in 2.35:1. So much is lost.
I caught it just in time! I was watching "Edge of Darkness" (2010) and would have been peeved if that had caused me to miss this one, which I've been curious about for decades. I've read about it and heard people talk about it. But, it's always much more satisfying to see it for myself. I've encountered spoilers along the way, but that has never bothered me. For me, the movie is a journey that I enjoy, even if I have heard about this or that occurring. Sometimes that heightens the suspense.
*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***
**spoiler question **
I just watched this film. was the murderer the mother,the son or both?
filmophile?: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=filmophile
That's what I'd like to know!
shareThe original script had the son as the killer. When they were showing the rough cut to Paramount, everyone knew it was the son, so the ending was reworked, some dialog changed and as the film plays now the mother is the killer.
It's confusing because the script was poor and the last minute fix the best they could do with no money and no time left. This info is from LITTLE SHOPPE OF HORROR issue 20, their Amicus special.
Thank you for the information. I have only viewed it once, and I may have missed something, but one thing that confuses me is that the son is talking at the end..."mother, mother" so I assumed he wasn't dead? Or did the mother somehow rig the body to make verbal sounds?? (like a toy doll!!)
I also doubted the mother would have the strength to move the strangled body and place it in the bathroom? (unless the son helped)
Anyway, an intriguing and entertaining film.
Thanks for the info on the last minute change...about the son at the end...I think the Mother said his back was broken so I think he's alive and she put makeup on him like her dolls. I am also unsure how she got his body out of the huge metal chain and up those stairs.
filmophile?: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=filmophile
It's mentioned the mom has hysterical paralysis ( it's all in her mind ) so the assumption would be she snapped out of it after her son's back was broken.
How she moved the chains is another laqpse in logic....they looked heavy. Plus the son in reality would be crushed and unable to breathe with all that piled on top of him.
I just watched this on TCM, and it clearly implies that the son is the killer. What indicates that the mother is? Plus, it's obvious that the son is alive, with a broken back, at the end. I also think it unlikely that she could remove the chains, and drag him from the boathouse, and up the stairs, even if she were healthy.
A very boring film. I guess it could have an effect on children - and apparently many saw it at a very young age. I had never heard about it till yesterday, and recorded it.