Propelled by a catchy title and the lure of some sexy alluring beast - and an iconic George C. Scott some 10 years after his academy award-winning turn in Patton, the film tries ambitiously to capitalize on the trend in that movie era to thrust aging iconic past-their-prime actors into the horror genre a la The Omen (1976) with Gregory Peck and The Omen II (1978) with William Holden.
All that said, expectations would be high, but turned out to be very disappointing. Marketed as a "supernatural horror" film, this is truly disingenuous as ABSOLUTELY no blood is "spilt" at any time. Further, suspense, mystery, or "thrills" are distinctly absent. And the only "supernature" are innocuous premonitions and a by-the-numbers non-descript seance.
The movie, to its credit (or discredit) shows a truly disturbing murder that would be disturbing and perhaps TOO disturbing by today's (2024) standards.
This is more aptly a "supernatural crime drama" - neither "horrifying" or "thrilling". And the term "changeling" was obviously used as a marketing ploy because it turns out the so-called titular "changeling" was no more than a child switched for another to gain power and inheritance. Nothing supernatural about that.
APPARENTLY, George C. Scott, fervently righteous during the entire movie, inexplicably was content to provide the powerful senator imposter with all the incriminating evidence, thereby avoiding any accountability. Having spiritually committed to seeking justice to the wrongfully murdered dead child, I guess Scott intended to simply allow the exposed senator to wallow in guilt and misery? He could not have expected Melvyn Douglas to walk into a burning mansion.
The movie since its "major theatrical release" over 45 years ago has only grossed no more than $12 million. That speaks for itself. I saw the movie in theaters at the time. The movie is still as underwhelming now (2024) as it was then.
All that said, expectations would be high, but turned out to be very disappointing. Marketed as a "supernatural horror" film, this is truly disingenuous as ABSOLUTELY no blood is "spilt" at any time. Further, suspense, mystery, or "thrills" are distinctly absent. And the only "supernature" are innocuous premonitions and a by-the-numbers non-descript seance.
The movie, to its credit (or discredit) shows a truly disturbing murder that would be disturbing and perhaps TOO disturbing by today's (2024) standards.
This is more aptly a "supernatural crime drama" - neither "horrifying" or "thrilling". And the term "changeling" was obviously used as a marketing ploy because it turns out the so-called titular "changeling" was no more than a child switched for another to gain power and inheritance. Nothing supernatural about that.
APPARENTLY, George C. Scott, fervently righteous during the entire movie, inexplicably was content to provide the powerful senator imposter with all the incriminating evidence, thereby avoiding any accountability. Having spiritually committed to seeking justice to the wrongfully murdered dead child, I guess Scott intended to simply allow the exposed senator to wallow in guilt and misery? He could not have expected Melvyn Douglas to walk into a burning mansion.
The movie since its "major theatrical release" over 45 years ago has only grossed no more than $12 million. That speaks for itself. I saw the movie in theaters at the time. The movie is still as underwhelming now (2024) as it was then.