Rachel was the funniest part. She looked funny, talked funny, sometimes became intolerable. But it didn't make me laugh. It made me yawn.
Considering the film is made in 1978, that is forgivable. Clearly Hollywood wasn't what it is today all the way back then. They gave it a try, they made something.
Julia - who was meant to be the witch, had some grace in her character. Rachel behaved like a disturbing teeny, which she is - in the film. The most interesting part in the film is, a witch can't be photographed. This was what drawn me towards it. Julia's photos wasn't showing her, and that was the best thing to happen in the whole film.
The film is boring, but it made me search about the author. Lois Duncan did write quite a few good stories, at least that's what it sounds like from her wiki.
It should have a remake I think. Today's directors would make a good commercial out of it.
The 1978 attempt failed.
Considering the film is made in 1978, that is forgivable. Clearly Hollywood wasn't what it is today all the way back then. They gave it a try, they made something.
Julia - who was meant to be the witch, had some grace in her character. Rachel behaved like a disturbing teeny, which she is - in the film. The most interesting part in the film is, a witch can't be photographed. This was what drawn me towards it. Julia's photos wasn't showing her, and that was the best thing to happen in the whole film.
The film is boring, but it made me search about the author. Lois Duncan did write quite a few good stories, at least that's what it sounds like from her wiki.
It should have a remake I think. Today's directors would make a good commercial out of it.
The 1978 attempt failed.