Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

JUNE 17, 2008

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

The trailer for Exorcist II: The Heretic is one of the most breathtakingly ridiculous trailers ever made. The techno music, the “what the FUCK?” selection of shots (chanting voodoo folk, cheesy “mind machines”, lots and lots of bees and locusts, etc)... it all leads you to think that the film is just a completely bonkers fever dream; a complete 180 from the clinical and cold original. But sadly, that is not the case – they attempt to COMBINE those things with the dry documentary feel of William Friedkin’s film, resulting in one of the most unfocused films I’ve ever seen.

Apparently, the original script was good enough for Linda Blair to sign on, after she initially refused to do a sequel. But that script was heavily rewritten and she was unable to back out (luckily, everyone else stuck to their guns all the way through). And Christ, does the rewriting show. Scenes and story ideas come and go without ever really being developed; Regan gets ESP and healing powers – goes nowhere. Regan sleepwalks and almost plunges to her death – goes nowhere. Ned Beatty shows up – goes nowhere. There’s no such thing as a completely bad Ned Beatty movie, but to waste him is unforgivable. They are all explained, but in a very clumsy (and quick) manner, as if a line of throwaway dialogue was enough to justify an entire unrelated sequence.

And there’s no goddamn exorcism! Hell, it’s not even clear if Regan is possessed again anyway – there are two of her during the climactic (and only) battle, not sure what that’s all about. But she doesn’t show any of the signs of being possessed (no urinating, no swearing, etc). She passes out during a tap dance recital and draws a guy on fire, and that is the extent of her “problems”. Yet everyone is seemingly more concerned for her health this time, trying to “help” her when we aren’t even really seeing her in any sort of danger. Whatever. There’s actually no real horror/action in the film at all until well over an hour into it; the first hour’s sole “spectacle” is a brief fire sequence, which is hilarious. The fire is small and contained in a small box, but in the process of trying to put it out, our hero manages to set about 6 other things on fire. Nice work dude.

And poor Richard Burton, who has the majority of the film’s silliest moments all to himself (including the fire). His trip to Africa results in him wearing a “native” silk shirt under his priest coat for the film’s final act, and that is the least of his problems. Speaking of “Africa”, it is the absolute worst set I have ever seen. Supposedly this was the most expensive movie in Warner’s history at the time it was made, but it certainly doesn’t show. I half-expected to see a few grips or maybe a studio tour walking around in the background whenever they show us the little African village in flashbacks that take up far too much time in the film (then again, maybe since I know that the 4th film deals with this “prequel” story, it feels a bit pointless in the here and now).

It’s also just blatantly obvious that certain characters that SHOULD have been in the film are not due to the actor not wanting to come back (this is back when recasting a character was taboo). Ellen Burstyn is ridiculously absent – she’s supposedly shooting a movie, but she can’t come back and be with her child during this time of extreme stress/danger? Where is Father Dyer? Oh, the actor didn’t come back, so now we have Burton’s character in the same capacity. Kinderman? Lee Cobb died, so he’s not even mentioned at all (neither is Father Karras, for some reason, even though HE is the one who actually exorcised Regan, not Merrin). And since Blair returned but refused to do makeup again, we have an obvious standin for possessed Regan, giving the film even MORE of a knockoff feel. Even odder, Max Von Sydow, the one actor who you wouldn’t expect to return, actually does, for flashbacks.

Still, it’s not entirely without merit; after all, an uneven film has to have good points as well. The film gives Louise Fletcher one of her rare sympathetic roles, and the basic concept is fine (the priest is investigating Regan to see if her exorcism was warranted, as Merrin is being blamed for heresy). And the finale, baffling as it may be, is pretty exciting, and features the sad death of a character we have come to really like. With some more focused writing and maybe the complete removal of Merrin’s flashback sequences (10-15 min to tell us what we already know – that Merrin performed an exorcism), this would actually be pretty good. No one was expecting it to surpass the original, but there’s no excuse for the quality to drop this low.

The disc’s extras are disappointing, just the amazing trailer and an “alternate opening sequence”. I wasn’t expecting a tell-all doc or even a commentary by John Boorman, but there’s an entirely different ending, plus other scenes, that were released on video before, so why they are not included here is just strange, especially since it’s in the deluxe box set. Oh well. On to part three!

What say you?

Read more »

Religious, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: The Exorcist (1973/2000)

JUNE 10, 2008

GENRE: POSSESSION, RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Don’t mock me (at least not just yet), it’s non canon! Trust me - I’ve seen The Exorcist before (both versions). Granted, I saw it rather late in my horror fandom life (when the new cut came out I was 20, and had only seen the original about a year or so before - NOW mock me), but that’s better than my late-to-the-game ages for other landmark horror films such as Rosemary’s Baby (27) and Cathy’s Curse (also 27). BUT, I have never seen any of the sequels, and since I finally got the box set recently, I figured I’d go through the mammoth collection for the first film (2 versions of the film, a total of 3 commentaries between them, a full length documentary, and some other junk) before diving into them. My friend Joe urged me to watch Exorcist III ASAP, but I learned my lesson long ago about watching a series out of order (Halloween) and avoid doing so as much as possible. Sorry Joe, II comes first.

So what do I think about the film? Well, it’s great. It’s not in my top 10, but that is because I prefer slasher and zombie movies for my horror viewing. However, as far as supernatural/possession horror films, it is pretty hard to beat (2nd only to Shocker). And the reason why it works so well is because it’s not about how cool a full body makeup effect they can get for the monster, or how nastily they can kill people. There is so little blood in this film it’s almost shocking; there is more explicit gore in the PG rated Indiana Jones films (the first 2 anyway) than this film contains. And it’s also paced rather slowly – I think our first real sign of horror comes around the 45 minute mark or so, and it’s another 10 or so before the “possession” makeup effects are seen. But all of that is WHY it works (and works even better in repeated viewings). It draws you in slowly, and builds steadily. Sure, there are highlights – pea soup, crucifix, etc. - but they flow naturally with the film, and the film’s ensemble cast (something often ignored – you got Regan, the mother, 3 priests, the cop, the doctor) keeps you on edge, because without a traditional main character you truly fear for someone’s life whenever they are in danger.

I also love how spare the music is. As much as I love Halloween and its score, Carpenter almost never let the damn score go silent. But here there is very little score, and even the famous “Tubular Bells” piece (even though it wasn’t written for the film, it’s still pretty much the most famous horror movie music ever next to Halloween, which I am guessing half of you have as a ringtone) is only used two or three times in the film. Incidentally, the first time we hear it is during a scene where Ellen Burstyn walks home on... Halloween.

And it’s easily one of the classiest horror films ever made. The acting is top notch across the board; there isn’t a single weak performance in the film, even among the minor characters. The direction is also above average, and I wish Friedkin had done more horror films, because he doesn’t FILM it like a horror film. Friedkin had a documentary background, and it shows; even in the more traditional horror scenes, there is a sense of loose detachment in the direction that makes the film stick out from all of the wannabes that followed.

At times it may be a bit too loose. One thing that always bugged me about the film (either version) was how abrupt some of the scenes cut to the next. For example, when Karras says that he is losing his faith, they cut to the next scene so quickly that this important fact isn’t given a chance to really resonate before we are being presented with new information. This was something I expected to be corrected in the “Version You Have Never Seen” (a title that only makes sense once), but no, that particular scene wasn’t touched at all.

In fact almost nothing they added to the 2000 version was really for the better. Things are screwed up right from the start, as they randomly insert shots of Regan’s house before the Iraq sequence. What the hell is the point of that? Not only is it a jarring edit, it’s simply baffling in the grand scheme of things; the only real reason I can see for its inclusion is foreshadowing, but people who had seen the film know damn well what’s going to happen, and people who HADN’T would be utterly confused as to why we are seeing a suburban home for 30 seconds in the nighttime before cutting to the hot Iraq desert.

Another big change was the “Spider-Walk” scene. On the original release of the DVD, this scene is shown in the documentary, but it’s longer there than in the new cut of the film. Again, the editing in of the scene is completely jarring; not only does it end abruptly (followed by like 20 seconds of black – huh?) but since the incident is never mentioned again, you gotta wonder why they bothered putting it back in at all. Granted it’s a freak visual, but cutting it into a dream sequence or something would have made a lot more sense, in my opinion. It’s also a bit odd that the sequence ran on much longer in the doc (Regan gets down the stairs and attacks Chris and Sharon), whereas in the new cut she reaches the bottom of the stairs and that’s it.

In the end only two of the changes were for the better. One is an early scene of Regan going for tests, coupled with the removal of the shot of her partying with the guests (before she pees on the floor). Not only does this make Chris’ line about her not feeling well make a bit more sense, but it’s also a good extension. You lose a bit of the ‘sudden impact’ of Regan’s possession, but you gain some foreboding information about her possible dementia. I have never read the book, but apparently the supernatural elements were largely left to interpretation; William Peter Blatty said it could be construed as simply a psychological episode in Regan’s mind (something Emily Rose went for, and successfully for the most part). Scenes like this play along those “crazy or not” themes, and since that’s also what I find interesting about these types of movies, I was happy to see it in the film. The other change I liked was the ending with Dyer and Kinderman. Dyer is a character I wish was in the film more anyway, and the uplifting ending is a nice touch. Plus it has more of the film’s odd idea that famous stories would be filmed with comedians in the roles (Jackie Gleason and Lucille Ball in Wuthering Heights? Groucho Marx in Othello?).

Between the two versions of the film there is a wealth of extras, but watching/listening to them all is not necessary, as information is repeated. Friedkin offers a commentary for both versions, but it seems he’s mostly out things to say for the 2000 version; other than pointing out the new scenes with little explanation for their inclusion here (or why they were removed), he merely narrates the entire film for the most part (I am not exaggerating, he even says the dialogue sometimes). Don’t bother with it. His commentary for the original version is far superior, and actually, if you don’t have time to watch the documentary (1:20 long!), his commentary and the IMDb’s trivia page for the film will tell you pretty much everything they offer anyway. Also on the original cut is a ‘commentary’ by Blatty, which is actually just a 40 minute interview with him, playing over the film without any real connection to what’s on screen. After that, we are treated to a truly strange extra – a half hour of sound effects and original recordings. So we hear Mercedes McCambridge saying the lines, and then Linda Blair’s original readings. After that, we just hear McCambridge make sounds like “RAWR!” for about 10 minutes. Again, it has nothing to do with what is on screen. Then it just stops, and the film’s original soundtrack plays as normal for the rest of the running time. Whatever. Blatty’s thoughts are interesting, but again, it’s just repeating stuff we heard elsewhere. And one extra is cut into the film itself – an intro with Friedkin (on the original cut). You can chapter skip over it, but there’s no way to avoid it entirely (and it makes the movie 2 minutes longer), which I have never seen before in all my years of nitpicking about the placement of extra features on special edition DVDs.

There are also a few deleted scenes (a couple aren’t in the new cut), some text based info about certain elements, such as the real story it’s based on and why they put together a new cut, and the usual trailers/storyboards/cast information (for some reason on the new cut the cast is merely listed; the actual information/filmographies are not accessible). Some of the trailers are pretty interesting – in addition to the amazingly schlocky tagline (“The movie you’ve been waiting for, without the wait!”), it’s nice to see how little the spots give away, compared to other horror films of the 70s (Halloween’s trailer, for example, gives away just about every single scare in the film). Some don’t even feature Regan at all.

Overall, the extras are fairly generic, but keep in mind both editions came relatively early in the life of DVDs, before studios began to get really creative with their special features, and also the film itself came along long before behind the scenes footage became standard. One thing that DOES exist that I wish was included was Blatty’s original script, which Friedkin hated. Should be interesting.

The Exorcist is one of those movies that every A-lister namechecks whenever they make a horror film. You know, “I don’t watch a lot of horror. I DO like The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, and Silence of the Lambs though.” But it’s also listed as a favorite among most hardcore horror fans. Which just proves the old theory – “No one can dislike a movie where a girl forces her mother’s face into her vagina after masturbating with a crucifix.”

One final note – Jason Miller/Karras does not look anything like Sal Mineo.

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Non Canon, Possession, Religious, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Believers (2007)

MAY 10, 2008

GENRE: CULT, RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

What the fuck is wrong with Raw Feed? Why can’t they ever make a film that lives up to its concept? I’d rather see a generic story done right than a good story done wrong, but that’s precisely what RF has done with each of their first three films. First was Rest Stop, which managed to create the most unlikable heroine in cinematic history (while boring us to tears). Then came Sublime, which was OK but about 40 minutes too long, and featured needless (and underdeveloped at that) “white guilt” social commentary. Now we have Believers, which not only takes a genius concept (a doomsday cult is actually right) but also an always fun actor (Johnny Messner) and once again dulls the movie almost beyond repair.

The problem is that the cult stuff is hardly the focus. This may be the first film in history whose sequel would almost be guaranteed to be more interesting. I was more interested in the history of the cult, its members, and most importantly, the idea that they were right all along. Naturally, the whole ‘end of the world’ that the film presents would kind of make a sequel hard to pull off, but I dunno, anything’s gotta be more interesting than watching scene after scene of Messner saying “fuck you!” and rattling his cage door. It’s a waste of a ‘twist’ ending when the 90 minutes before it weren’t giving you much in the way of entertainment.

That said, it’s not a bad movie. As said, Messner’s a fun guy to watch, and the few bits of interesting thought that the movie offers are certainly compelling. And one of the cult guys is named Io (lol), and resembles Tony from the original Die Hard (the one that Willis kills first; “There are RULES for policemen.”). And the cult member is the bald guy from Murder One, so there’s something. But the reliance on typical plot developments (Messner’s coworker comes looking for him, Messner briefly escapes, etc) sort of outweigh the original aspects. You really gotta work to weed out the good and try to ignore the generic.

One thing that helps immensely is, strangely, the disc’s extra features. Most of them feature the lovably nutty Io, including his orientation video, an uncut interview that he does on some sort of daytime talk show (this includes a hilarious and subtle jab at Scientology), and his explaining how math ties into their theories about God and life and all that good stuff. There’s also a video of some folks investigating the cult compound, taking place shortly after the events of the film (but before the film’s epilogue, obviously). The 20 minutes of material here are all far more interesting and revealing than the film itself.

Then again, you can’t really be surprised by that, since the film is directed by none other than Blair Witch’s Daniel Myrick (faring far better here than Solstice, at any rate). BW had a bunch of stuff (books, video games, tv specials, and of course, the internet) that fleshed out the film, and the same thing applies here. The only difference is, BW is still fun to watch even without knowing any of that other stuff, whereas with Believers, it’s almost required viewing in order to give the film any merit at all. Without this stuff, it’s just an underdeveloped, only occasionally interesting overlong Twilight Zone episode.

The only sort of “typical” extra is a commentary, and like Solstice, it’s just not very interesting, even though Myrick has help here (co-writer Julia Fair). He rambles about technical things, and also sits in silence for long periods of time. Fair occasionally interjects some generic “this guy was great” type comments about the cast, but not much else. Myrick also points out a Blair Witch related “easter egg” that I had actually caught, so if you missed it, watch the commentary up until that point to see what it is!

And yes, I spoiled the ending of the movie but not a vague reference that occurs in the first 10 minutes.

What say you?

Read more »

Cult, Religious,

{[['']]}

Rosemary's Baby

DECEMBER 18, 2007

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Well as many of you correctly guessed (almost 50% of the total vote!), Rosemary’s Baby is indeed the classic horror movie I had never seen. There are many reasons for this. One is that the movie is too damn long to watch before work (which is when I watch many of my films), so I had to get myself up early to watch it (and I STILL didn’t finish it time, and had to watch the conclusion at work and pray Mia Farrow didn’t appear nude again in the final 15 minutes).

Another reason is that it’s just been built up so much. Being a lover of horror, I read a lot of Fangoria, Rue Morgue, etc. And whenever they interview a big star who is doing a horror movie, they always have the same canned answer in regards to their opinions on horror films: “I don’t usually like horror movies; though I do like Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, and Silence of the Lambs.” Well, that’s fine; maybe you should get together with all the two thousand other “serious” actors who said the same thing. I’ll be over here making my own opinions.

Anyway, out of those three, I don’t like Silence much at all and I think Exorcist is only pretty good. I can certainly see why people like them so much, and they are at least technically near flawless (though I HATE all the looking directly into camera stuff in Silence – way overused), but for the most part they are not my cup of tea. So I always kind of figured Rosemary would leave me with the same impression, so I opted to go out of my way to see shit like Hallowed Ground (a film with a similar premise) instead. Real smart, huh?

Luckily, I actually enjoyed Rosemary. It’s certainly not one of my 3 favorites (then again, that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who knows where my tastes lie), but it really works, and even holds up well, 40 years later. The pace is a bit uneven, but it’s forgivable, as it sort of lulls you into thinking everything is fine only to deliver something sort of shocking (her friend’s ‘suicide’ early on, for example).

Strangely, for a film that’s 2:20 long, the editing is almost TOO tight. Several scenes end right at the instant the last word is said, when you would expect it to hold on a reaction so that the words sink in a bit before we move on to something else. Of course, those same folks who claim this film is the 2nd coming will be the first to complain about a Bruckheimer film being edited too fast, but I’m used to that sort of hypocrisy by now.

And I SWORE this guy was a time traveling Geoffrey Lewis.

As this is a Polanski film, there’s a lot of quirky humor to enjoy as well. I love the husband’s complete laid back manner of revealing to Rosemary that he fucked her in her sleep. “I thought it was exciting in a sort of necrophile way,” he says, as casually as he might mention that he was considering buying a new tie. There’s also a catty cult member who sticks her tongue out at Rosemary for getting her in trouble with the main cult guy. And William Castle shows up in a fake scare, which is pretty awesome (he produced the film).

Also, I never knew Mia Farrow was once hot. Good to know.

On a final note, I’d like to point out that the 2nd place “winner” in the poll was John Carpenter’s The Thing, a film I have professed my love for a couple of times on the site. Does this mean that you HAVEN’T memorized the contents of all 300+ reviews? Why, I am insulted!!!

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Psychological, Religious,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: End Of Days

NOVEMBER 22, 2007

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

One of my stranger holiday traditions is always taking in a viewing of one of the last Schwarzenegger spectacles (and the only one of his films that could be considered horror, and please do not make a Batman and Robin, Junior, or Jingle All The Way joke in response to that), End Of Days. I saw it for the first time on Thanksgiving, in 1999, and have rewatched it every Thanksgiving since. But the viewing comes with a challenge: I have never ONCE stayed awake through the entire film, sometimes barely seeing half of it. So every year I become determined to break this “curse”, and every year, I fail.

Obviously, this is due to the fact that I just had an assload of turkey, which is filled with delicious tryptophan, aka sleepy time juice. It could be any goddamn movie and I would probably still pass out. But since this year I had turducken instead of standard turkey, my trypto-intake was reduced by 1/3, and thus I am proud to say that while I still fell asleep, I saw more of the movie than ever, having only dozed for about 10 minutes.

Oddly, the part I slept through was one of the few scenes I somehow always manage to be awake during, which is when Kevin Pollak’s character turns traitor and leaves Arnold to get the shit beat out of him in an alley. See, until now, I was convinced that there were parts of the film I had never actually seen, having slept through them every time. But now I know I have seen the whole thing, though there were a couple sequences I saw for only the 2nd or 3rd time (out of what, 9 viewings now?) this time around. So hurrah!

On to the movie itself, it’s not all that bad. Sure, it was instantly dated due to all of the Y2K talk (LOL), and the guy playing Arnold in the stunt scenes resembles Nathan Fillion more than my governor, but hey. And some may point out the ridiculous concept, but Arnold beats them to the punch, as he makes fun of it in the film itself (Rod Steiger: “The Devil has to impregnate her by midnight!” Arnold: “Is that eastern time?” HAHAHAHAH amazing). Some of the CG is pretty bad too.

OK, maybe it’s actually NOT very good. But it’s fun, dammit. At the time, it had been a while since Arnold had done a movie, so it was a blast to see him come back fighting the Devil, and Gabriel Byrne is one of my all time favorite onscreen Lucifers, particularly due to the fact that he gets a mom and daughter in a threeway, melding the two of them into one in the process. Hot. Also, his argument against God is pretty hilarious (“something good happens, it’s ‘his will’, something bad happens, ‘he works in mysterious ways’?”). And when he takes on demon form, he looks like the thing on the Bat out of Hell album cover, so that’s certainly a big plus for me.

On top of that, there’s some actually funny lines from Pollak (“It ends in a football score?”), and a really obscure Usual Suspects reference I always got a kick out of – there’s a scene with Byrne and Pollak (who were both in Suspects), where Byrne’s urine stream is used to ignite a fire. In Suspects, Byrne is trying to set off an explosion and he is thwarted by Keyser Soze’s urine putting the fire out. John Debney’s score even homages a bit of the Suspects’ theme at this point. Well played. And the scene where Arnold puts a coffee, some booze, some Chinese food, a slice of pizza, and Pepto Bismol into a blender is one of my favorites, and I’d be lying if I said I’m not tempted to make my own, similar concoction someday.

Obviously, as this is a Peter Hyams film, one must have good eyesight and a better home theater in order to see half of the imagery (my attempts to rent the HD version for this year’s viewing were foiled via a “Long Wait” mark on Netflix), though to be fair this is one of his better efforts. There are a few daytime scenes, and only a few of the night ones will result in a “What the FUCK am I actually looking at here?” reaction, something that plagued The Relic (and worse, his action movie Sudden Death, a film that I am convinced was shot partially through the lens cap). Originally the film was going to be directed by Marcus Nispel (who went on to direct the Chainsaw remake), but he was removed (if I remember correctly, Nispel said no one could look him in the eye or something?). Since I fucking LOVE how the TCM remake looks (though half the credit goes to Daniel Pearl, obviously), I can’t help but wonder what the film would have looked like had he stayed on board. I also often wonder how much better the film would be if it starred someone who could act. Arnold’s never been the best actor in the world, and there’s a reason why a lot of his movies are sort of light (True Lies, Last Action Hero) or he plays a robot. Here, the subject matter gets pretty dark, and he can’t quite pull off a grieving father who contemplates suicide as well as Stallone or Willis could have. Oh well.

Oh hey did you notice, every paragraph begins with an O? It was coincidence for the first 3 but then I did it on purpose. It’s meaningless.

What say you?

Read more »

Non Canon, Religious, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Alice, Sweet Alice (aka Communion)

SEPTEMBER 16, 2007

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SLASHER
SOURCE: CABLE (FLIX)

The worst thing a filmmaker can do is be Paul Haggis. But the SECOND worst thing a filmmaker can do is setup a killer kid movie and turn it into a killer old Italian woman movie, which is exactly what Alfred Sole did in Alice, Sweet Alice.

I don't think it's spoiling much, since it's revealed halfway through, but it was still disappointing. Killer kids are always welcome in my DVD player. Luckily, the film’s other merits more or less make up for it. There’s a delightful cast full of despicable characters, such as an aunt that seemingly hates everyone in her family, and a fat landlord who may be a pedophile. Also, there are a few hints that the little girl we thought was a killer IS at least going to be one someday (and she does kill a cat by flinging it hard onto the floor - poor kitty!). And the music rips off Psycho’s to a certain, but not excessive, degree. Hurrah!

The only thing that really bummed me out was that nothing in the film was as creepy as the film’s poster (see below), which used to scare me at the video store as a kid. I also remember for some reason that there was a badly shrink wrapped copy of the film at the Sam Goody that I worked at during high school, and that the damn thing STILL freaked me out. Yet I waited like 15 years after being aware of its existence to watch it. What the hell is my problem?

Also, the religious stuff may turn some off. Of course, when the film was made (and also when it was set, which is 15 years before the film was made, for reasons that are never explained), the Catholic Church was more or less in good public standing. But nowadays, a woman so devout to its teachings that she would kill “sinners” is sort of nothing compared to the real world, where the priests molest little boys while the higher ups spend their time focusing on the “real” problem of, well, movies like this.

But hey, if you ever wanted to stab your priest in the neck while he fed you communion, let yourself live through this otherwise sort of pointless movie!

What say you?

Read more »

Religious, Slasher,

{[['']]}

Stigmata

JULY 22, 2007

GENRE: RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Why does every single movie about a priest who goes around disproving miracles have to begin with him in some third world country? Don’t folks in big cities make shit up too? Stigmata follows suit, but at least we are spared the “This is fake, I am going home to get a new assignment that will turn out to be a genuine miracle” sequence of events. He finds the real one right away!

It is in this sequence (before the most annoying credit sequence in cinematic history, which is like a music video edited on a broken Avid) that we see a quick photograph that apparently is meaningless. But since one of the people in the photo is Rade Sherbedgia, character actor extraordinaire and archenemy of spell check, you know that the photo is foreshadowing something bad.

But that’s part of the problem with this movie: Rade finally shows up with like 15 minutes left to go. Oddly, the film was directed by Rupert Wainwright (how amazing would it be if it was actually Rufus Wainwright? The "Hallelujah" usage alone would be worth every cent of the budget), who did the same thing with Rade in The Fog. It should be a rule that any actor who never appears in a film prior to the halfway point should not be billed at the beginning. I had the same problem with Saw. It was obvious the film was just about over, and there was still no sign of the promised Tobin Bell. It’s a distraction, and it sort of condemns you for actually reading the credits.

So when the guy with all the explanations and ties to the ‘villain’ doesn’t show up until the last reel, what the hell comes before it, you might ask? Simple: lots and lots of the same types of scenes, repeating over and over. Patricia Arquette goes about her normal business, Gabriel Byrne goes about his, suddenly Arquette screams and blood begins to pour from her (feet, hands, head, or back), and Byrne comes to her rescue. We watch over an hour of this before the story itself actually kicks in, almost as an afterthought.

Luckily, Wainwright can actually direct (or gives enough trust to DP Jeff Kimball), so the film is at least interesting to look at. But therein lays the problem with almost all religious based horror movies: they are so interested in supplying the viewer with striking imagery that they forget to put a story in. There should be another rule: for every Dutch angled shot of a crucifix, we get a line or two about what the fuck is going on.

And while we’re at it, how about a third rule: No film should cast Patrick Muldoon unless a giant “Brain Bug” brutally kills his character and then sucks his brain out.

The DVD has a theoretical nice set of features, including an alternate ending (one you can use the oft-maligned ‘seamless’ branching option to watch along with the rest of the movie). But the difference is obvious (she lives in the theatrical ending, so…), and doesn’t really change the meaning of the story (which is actually pretty damn interesting, when it's actually being implemented), so you can probably skip it. There’s also some other deleteds that are also mostly useless, except for a great discarded opening, and a thoroughly boring commentary.

All in all, not a bad film, just an overlong one. With the worst soundtrack ever recorded/assembled. But with Byrne as the least likely-to-be-a-child-molester priest in cinematic history, it makes a great double feature with End of Days.

What say you?

Read more »

Religious,

{[['']]}

The Woods

JUNE 13, 2007

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Faithful readers (if I have any) will remember that I usually keep a piece of paper next to me to jot down notes while I watch the film (at least, when I’m watching the movie at home. People who write stuff in the theater are douches). This aids me in writing the review, especially when I don’t have the chance to write it until a day or two later. Well even though it was only like 6 hrs ago, I stumped myself with my notes for Lucky McKee’s The Woods.

There were very few notes to begin with, which makes this anecdote even sadder. On the paper, I had written: “Don’t tell me what to do.” I stared at this for a good 10 minutes trying to recall what the hell it meant. Still puzzled, I went to drop a deuce, and immediately after… completing the task, I remembered: it was the lyric from the Lesley Gore song “You Don’t Own Me”, which was featured in the film. It stuck out because Mike Mendez used it in The Convent to similar effect. It’s a really unintentionally creepy song. Not as creepy as “You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me” from Dusty Springfield, but close. I’ve always wanted to make a mix CD of songs that for some reason creep me out. To me, Carly Simon’s “That’s The Way I Always Heard It Should Be” is more terrifying than anything in half the movies I watch.

And are there any all girls schools in the middle of nowhere that AREN’T evil? Suspiria, Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Woods… just once, I’d like to see a girl be sent off to a woodsy private school, only to be immediately killed accidentally by a neighboring wizard. The rest of the movie is about the wizard’s attempts to revive her, the school never seen again. You know how in the Simpsons, the first 5 minutes or so have almost nothing to do with the real story? We need more movies like that.

Anyway, this film didn’t deserve to be sent direct to video. Especially when star Agnes Bruckner’s other horror efforts (Blood and Chocolate, Venom) were god awful and greeted with wide theatrical releases. And what other movie offers Oscar nominee Patricia Clarkson getting axed to death? Certainly not Good Night and Good Luck (and the movie is the poorer for it).

Not that it’s any sort of masterpiece. I literally had to take a shit to remember anything about it 6 hrs later. But it moves along well and has some really gruesome (and unexpected) gore, if you like that sort of thing. There’s also some nice playing with conventions, in particular: Bruckner’s character never has the “I swear I SAW something!” scene with no one believing her. Instead, another character has to try to convince her that something is amiss, and of course by then it’s too late. Stuff like that is always nice to see. And extra bonus points to McKee and writer David Ross for having a scene where Bruce Campbell goes to a shed to look for a weapon, but does not have him “hilariously” pick up a chainsaw. Indeed, Campbell plays the role entirely straight, which I think is the first time he has done so other than that one X-Files episode. Good for him!

McKee is a solid director, and with a good script (i.e. May) he can work wonders. In fact, he’s a good enough director that his work elevates the messy script, something few directors can pull off. Give the guy something good! It’s not like we’re overloaded with solid modern horror directors. Very few have proven they can make more than one good film.

The movie does have a pet peeve of mine though: Poor green-screen compositing giving away a scare. There’s a scene where a cop gets into his car. Nothing exciting is going on, but everything outside of the car has clearly been added in later, which means – THERE IT IS! A tree monster thing smashes in and impales him. But the problem is, there are like 2 or 3 other shots in between him getting into the car and the actual killing, thus defusing all suspense, because we knew right from the get-go that something was going to happen. In such cases, I wish the first shot would be real, so when they cut back to it and it’s fake, you don’t notice before the attack occurs. Then again, some folks never even notice these things so whatever.

If nothing else, The Woods features a character that is consistently referred to as “Firecrotch”, and gets a laugh or two from mocking a poor woman’s nervous tic. Classy.

What say you?

Read more »

Religious, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

The Omen (1976)

JUNE 6, 2007
GENRE: KILLER KID, RELIGIOUS
SOURCE: CABLE (FOX MOVIE CHANNEL)

I SWEAR TO GOD I had no real awareness of the date last night when I decided to watch The Omen. My only reason was it had been a while, and my Tivo had gotten Omen II (which I have never seen) a few days before and I wanted to refresh my memory before I watched it. My wife was like "ooh, 666" and I was like "What the fuck are you rambling about, woman?" and she reminded me of the date. Even weirder, that means it was exactly one year since I saw the remake. THE DEVIL LIVES IN ME!!!! Or, my remote.

I didn't hate the remake. It had been so long since I had seen the original at that point, that it was sort of like watching a new movie. The acting was solid (even Julia Stiles was less slapworthy than usual), and it had John Morghen (that's Giovanni Lombardo Radice to you) in a small role. Nothing wrong with that. Like all remakes, you can always say "It's not as bad as the Psycho remake!", if nothing else.

Watching the original again, it becomes clear that the two films are actually a fascinating example as to just how much direction, casting, etc can totally change a film. Unlike Gus Van Sant's shot for shot, horribly miscast monstrosity, the Omen films differ wildly at times while not really changing a single word, but both work (though I think the remake works better if you hadn't seen the original) in their own way. Both films used the same script (the remake added some nonsense about 9/11 and Katrina but that's about it), so the 'differences' lie totally in how Richard Donner and John Moore staged their respective scenes and cast their actors. Whereas in the original, Damien was a cute little kid who appeared totally innocent throughout the film, the remake had some creepy looking bastard who looked evil right from the start, thus totally changing the dynamic of his scenes. And, I am sure I'll get flamed for this (by... someone, I guess), Moore's direction of the dog attack in the graveyard was superior to Donner's. Moore's scene actually got a scare out of me, Donner's did not. There are other subtle and minor little things throughout the film that, again, on paper are probably identical, but the execution was different, resulting in an entirely different perspective on how the film plays out. Pretty interesting, I definitely recommend watching the two films back to back if you are in film school and in that "No one can ruin my script!" phase.

And dammit, we need more David Warner in films!!!

What say you?

Read more »

Killer Kid, Religious,

{[['']]}