I have just watched the "Director's Cut" version of this film, and it is tempting to play devil's advocate and ask why do so many people think that this film is anything more profound than the story of an exceptionally priggish policeman with an extremely narrow and outmoded (even for the 1970s) take on Christianity on the one hand, and a bunch of stupid weirdos singing silly songs and waving their arms about like crazed chimpanzees?
Superimposed on this core content is an excellent performance by Edward Woodward, a reasonably good one by Christopher Lee, the total irrelevance of Britt Ekland (and her admittedly beautiful nude stand-in) and the extremely irritating minor characters and (I'm a Scot) the strange variety of accents.
There is some beautiful scenery and an admittedly shocking conclusion leading one either to exclaim "So what?" or to wax eloquent about Christ's sacrifice morally inverted, or some such profound thoughts which, truth to say, the content of the film doesn't really merit.
Oh, and it is quite funny in places. I could certainly watch it again a number of times, but I suspect that it might just get funnier rather than more shocking and profound. I'll report back differently if otherwise.
Superimposed on this core content is an excellent performance by Edward Woodward, a reasonably good one by Christopher Lee, the total irrelevance of Britt Ekland (and her admittedly beautiful nude stand-in) and the extremely irritating minor characters and (I'm a Scot) the strange variety of accents.
There is some beautiful scenery and an admittedly shocking conclusion leading one either to exclaim "So what?" or to wax eloquent about Christ's sacrifice morally inverted, or some such profound thoughts which, truth to say, the content of the film doesn't really merit.
Oh, and it is quite funny in places. I could certainly watch it again a number of times, but I suspect that it might just get funnier rather than more shocking and profound. I'll report back differently if otherwise.