glen-88 Reviews

Tron: Legacy (2010)

Tron: Lunacy

[7/10 · 18 December 2010]

Tron has always been a childhood favorite, visually, stylistically, and idea wise - it was an amazing film but after watching it again as an adult, I realize it had some problems as well - mainly some weak plot development and character arcs.

Tron Legacy, in this regard, follows it predecessors exactly in both it's accomplishments and snafus.

The film opens solidly with Sam Flynn (Flynn's son) dealing with the loss of his long gone father and running off with Encom's Operating system - making it open source for all to use. Against the wishes the corporate board. A few nods are made to the original here - (we briefly meet Dillinger's son and see he has some part seemingly in the company's power structure, and the BIG DOOR makes a cameo appearance - you know the one.)

Sam eventually makes it onto a new computerized grid (albeit with less flash than Flynn did in the original)in the back of his father's abandoned arcade. This new grid is dark and beautiful all at once. From there he is captured, forced to play the games - though cool to watch, seem to stand out less to me than the first time around, and meets Clu 2.0. Our antagonist. He eventually escapes and meets up with Flynn, and the two, with the help of some weird half program/lifeform (who takes the shape of a hot woman) journey towards the portal out in the far wastelands of the grid, chased of course by Clu and it turns out Clu's henchman - Tron (who was reprogrammed). At the end, Tron has a sudden change of heart, Flynn kills himself to take out Clu and Sam and robo girl escape back into the real world. Sam decides to take his position as head of the company and he and digi chick ride off into the sunset.

Now that I've condensed the film into a few paragraphs let me encode to you it's pluses and minuses.

Positives: Visually beautiful film, Some of the story subplots are very interesting, and the action is a lot of fun to watch.

Negatives: The story starts a bunch of subplots that never really develop:

First they bring in Dillinger's son, he seemingly has some power in the company, but nothing ever happens with him and he never is referenced again.

Tron has a great subplot - he was repurposed to be Clu's evil right hand hatchet man but he suddenly has a change of heart in the last few minutes of the film (literally within ten seconds by voicing some old dialouge from the last film, tries to stop Clu and dies). He's amazing to watch when he fights - it's a huge twist in the story and he gets very little screen time to develop his arc. Almost none. So in the end the Titular character has a somewhat brief appearance and his motivations remain vague.

Flynn's motivations also seem a little weak but even more than that Flynn apparently has God-like powers in this new grid - which are never discussed or shown in any way that makes sense, so when he sacrifices himself and throws his digital magic around, it feels a little too deus ex machina...but then again that's exactly what he is, so maybe I'm just being a little too anal about that one.

The new life forms on the grid (I forget the bizarre name they give) that look like programs, act like programs, bleed like programs but aren't programs..entirely, are not really developed much - except that Clu tried to wipe them all out..for some vague reason and the only one that remains is Sam's new digital girlfriend. Apparently these beings will "change everything" but how exactly they'll do that is never talked about. This subplot really felt unneeded to me. Clu own agenda of invading with a digital army of his own into the real world is enough of a threat (albeit kind of a lame one).

Finally all the weird inconsistencies with how the digital world works leaks through the fabric of the film's beautifual visual style...i.e. why is there real food in the grid? How can a digital program have a real body in the real world? How is Sam's girlfriend suddenly outside and in physical form at the end of the film?

And why exactly did Flynn repurposing Clu at the end, and killing himself in the process for some reason, destroy or knock out the grid? What the hell did Sam save to his little zip disk at the end? WHAT THE HECK WAS THE POINT OF ANY OF IT?

The answer: A thrown together script, a lotta hype, and lots of pretty cgi.

Tron Legacy may someday stack up in cult circles like it's father did, and it may even get a sequel but the filmmakers need to remember it's not the dollars spent on cgi bits and bytes that count, it's the hours spent writing cohesive arcs and plots.

Gray (I) (2010)

Thought Provoking

[8/10 · 9 August 2010]

I saw an early screening of this and felt moved to say the film is an amalgam of a confessional diary, poignant drama and philosophical debate. At times a little self indulgent, it still captivates the audience with universal questions on pain, suffering and God. Director Dan Roemer has successfully taken a harrowing real life event and built enough of a narrative around it to MAKE the audience think about some very uncomfortable subjects.

For this, I believe it is more art in the true sense of the word, than a movie that you would casually watch. The characters/actors are real enough for us to see how desperation has been racked upon them by past grief.

If I could sum it up it'd be a cross between "My Dinner with Andre" and "The King of Tides". Intensly personal, unashamedly honest, and very thought provoking.

Congrats Mr. Roemer. Though it's not easy to swallow, it's nonetheless a very gripping story that pulls the audience in.

Iron Man 2 (2010)

A sequel in every sense of the word.

[8/10 · 8 May 2010]

Iron man 2 follows the typical modern conventions of a sequel, bigger explosions, more bad guys, and much more spectacle. Unfortunately it falls prey to all the bad things about a sequel as well, namely the idea that "more is better".

The Good: Robert Downey JR, Emma Thompson, Don Cheadle, and the newly added Scarlett Johansen all do a great job of fleshing out their characters and providing enough witty banter to entertain us (Director Jon Faverau's little fight scenes were great fun to watch).

We learn a bit more about the Avengers of course and there are plenty of nods to the comic book community throughout the film (most notably the last scene after the credits).

The special effects as is typical for today's films are top notch.

The bad: The story meanders. Tony faces off against Ivan Vanko/Whiplash and while the battles are entertaining the motivation for Whiplash is somewhat muddled. He seems more like one of those no name wrestlers that Tier 1 stars toss about the ring than a truly evil antagonist. I never really felt like Tony was going to lose. Nothing truly felt at stake.

Iron Man 2 tries to also address Tony's own failing health (tied to his power source and creating a new gizmo-power source for his suit) which is also somewhat hastily explained, bring about a redemptive father/son subplot that ultimately doesn't amount to much, and move along the Pots/Stark romance (which had its cute moment near the end).

The story seems to want to hit about a dozen different nails on the head and does, but not totally effectively; going for width in the story arc instead of depth.

My friend and I left the theater liking certain moments of the film but ultimately feeling it was bloated and could have had about 10 minutes shaved off and the stakes raised.

Perhaps the I.M. 3 will put some real "iron" back into the franchise.

Paranormal Entity (2009 Video)

The ghost of Paranormal Activity Returns!

[3/10 · 24 April 2010]

The previous at least would have been a somewhat more original title then the slap together "Paranormal Entity" used.

In case you're wondering if this movie is worth seeing, a resounding "NO" should be cried.

I think anyone viewing this will immediately think of "Paranormal Activity", the filmmakers seems to take pride riding on it's coat tails. Still, like premises can occasionally create good films for both, thats why I viewed it.

Story goes: Dead Dad, mourning mom and teen brother and sister. We find that Mom has been autowriting at night, unknowingly inviting a demon into the house. Said demon runs loose spooking the family, and eventually complete mayham ensues when the daughter is raped and killed.

"Entity" is a tad grittier than "Activity" and the starlette Erin Marie Hogan does a decent job of acting, she's easy on the eyes as well. With those two exceptions, the movie stinks. The story, of course, is unoriginal at this point, the wrap up with the "doctor" is a mish-mash of screams, jump cuts and fake blood, and the whole thing leaves one wondering why can't such a low budget film at least come up with some original ideas to scare people?

Pandorum (2009)

Pan-dreadful

[4/10 · 3 October 2009]

The psychological terror the film wishes to instill on us comes up short - not due to the basic plot or premise but to the dreadful homogenized editing and directing.

Pandorum is not a bad film as far as story goes - certainly there a lot worse premises for a film out there and this little yarn is original in how it explains the presence of the unnamed nasties on the ship. But what it fails so miserably in is something that should be film-making 101 to any competent director...exposition...there's almost none. No sooner have we met a crew on board some sort of flying death trap than we find everyone and everything has run amok.

And while the answers are quickly given to us (much much later in Act 2) they are quickly hashed through and then just as quickly dropped.

The fact that the evil meanies on board are some sort of evolutionary hybrid gone awry because every astronaut is given a magic serum that adapts human DNA is barely mentioned very late into the film and because of this feels pretty tacked on. If it had been brought about earlier it would have given the film much more suspense.

The ship actually being underwater on the Tanis (or whatever its called) planet is a neat little twist at the end but it doesn't make up for the bad lighting and little to no character development...two of the surviving crew come across as little more than grunting exotic warriors who's ultimate sacrifices make no difference to us.

Dennis Quaid is a welcome addition but even he can't sustain the mire of character arcs that at one moment pit him against a younger insane crew member and at another moment make him akin to a babbling Jack Nicholson in the Shining.

The thing with thrillers is you have to be invested in the characters before you feed them to the wolves, and when feeding them to said wolves, leaving everything a total mystery up until the very end is a little amateurish...real suspense builds on what facts are already known.

Unfortunately Pandorum's creators didn't take the time they could have in creating any suspense and so the whole thing feels like a rehash of Aliens, Event Horizon, and a dozen other films, except not quite as good.

5/10 stars for the basic premise, the set design and a very few nice visuals.

The Last Winter (2006)

Interesting and creepy

[8/10 · 15 June 2009]

I watched this on Netflix and found it to be a lot better than I expected. Certainly the writers have taken a lesson from the horror/suspense book of rules, the setting creates the needed isolation that later turns into paranoia and death and is often very reminiscent in The Thing and The Shinning.

The setting in fact is smartly woven in as the major antagonist in the film, tying in natural disasters to Native American myth. It creates a beast quite unlike anything I've seen on film before.

Ron Pearlman's character could've used a more subtle arc in his angry block headed transformation and there are times where the pace of the conflicts is a bit too slow but ultimately the film works and is fairly creepy on many levels.

The Last Winter is part ecological allegory, part psychological thriller, and a lot of stunning visuals. Well worth screening.

Friday the 13th (2009)

Should be sunk in Crystal Lake

[2/10 · 15 February 2009]

I'm sorry - anyone who states this brings back the good old days of the franchise - forgets one thing, the good old films at least, occasionally, had some new twists or original ideas in them.

This film doesn't just make a nod to the old Fridays, it rips them off and rehashes their guts out. I felt like I was watching a highlights clip show on MTV of all the other Friday movies with some extra loud sounds thrown in.

Not one iota of the film tried to do something different or original, the deaths were laughably predictable, and yes there are one or two cheap scares thrown in but for eight bucks a pop we should be getting terrified all the time.

Of course the originals were not masterpieces either but at least they tried to develop the characters - this one has us meeting people we could care less about, and as satisfying as it is to see shallow model types get bludgeoned - it would have been much more terrifying if we actually liked or believed any of their motivations.

Yes Motivation! Any idiot who says motivation for victim or monster is not needed has no concept of what makes a good story or a good scare.

The Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw, even Halloween revamps were put together much better than this p.o.s. because they had some realistic aspect in their story, some motivation that worked on some level, and characters that we could identify with in some way.

I give this dud 2 stars for the curves of some of the actresses but thats all.

Jumper (2008)

Flopper!

[3/10 · 19 February 2008]

Flopper should be the title of this dismal excuse for a matrix wanna be knock off.

The story is as inexplicable as it is lame. Unfortunate kid has magic powers he suddenly discovers, he uses said powers to get anything he wants, he falls for old school crush, wins her then saves her from a super secret group of FBI/NSA/CIA (whatever) thugs who's sole mission in life is to hunt "jumpers" like him.

There's almost no backstory as to why Jumpers can jump or why these super secret voodoo government guys want to kill the jumpers. The dialogue and scenarios are fairly predictable, and more often than not I found myself watching this thing and saying "wait...what just happened? Why did the guy do that?" But I never got an answer cause the protagonist was jumping into something else.

The mother/father relationships are important in the film but never developed, the love relationship is cliché, and the only other jumper in the film seems to not do much but try to make clever quips and jump around real fast.

The ending is less than thrilling and it really feels like Doug Liman was on crack or had ADD while making this - cause it starts off solid and then just spastically goes all over the place before coming to a quick end.

Avoid this one if at all possible, its not worth ten bucks.

28 Weeks Later (2007)

Better than I expected.

[8/10 · 13 October 2007]

I'd heard some bad press about this flick, mostly from friends, who tend to rag on anything horror related. When I finally got around to watching it though, I really enjoyed what I saw.

28 weeks later continues the story of poor zombie infested England, with a cast of new characters, ready to recolonize the place. Of course everything goes to crap, and only a few survivors are left after the smoke clears. Im being vague on purpose here. The shock moments really should be enjoyed.

The beginning goes from 5 mph, excitement wise, to warp ten in about three seconds, and the protagonist's transformation into the antagonist who's inner struggle literally transforms him - is a cool to see, almost like Nicholson's twist in the Shining but on crack.

Which is all fancy talk for saying the characters are pretty well scripted out, and very sympathetic. The action/thrills are top notch, and this time noticeably bigger in scope...firebombing half of London is pretty spectacular.

You can tell Danny Boyle had some input in this thing, simply because it fits so well with the first one, and doesn't fall into any of the trappings most horror sequels hit.

I can wait for the last installment.

Grendel (2007 TV Movie)

Q&A with the Writer!

[14 January 2007]

I'm an associate of Ron Fernandez and after viewing some of the enlightening comments made I thought I'd have a quick Q&A with the writer of "Grendel". The following is a transcript:

G: Hi Ron.

R: Hi Glen, It's great to be here.

G: So Ron, how do you feel about the movie as a whole?

R: Overall I think it came out great(he says smiling) considering the resources and timetable involved in these films. I think SciFi Channel and UFO films did a super job of translating it to the screen. Nick Lyon, who directed it and is now doing Species 4, brought great life to the characters, and I particularly enjoyed watching Ben Cross coax the drama out of his scenes. Chariots of Fire to Grendel... Hmmm...

G: Cool. Yeah I enjoyed watching it with you over many beers at our favorite pub.

R: Maybe the beers helped.

(both laughing)

G: What did inspire you to manhandle this epic poem?

R: When I was hired by the production company I realized the daunting task of adapting one of the greatest stories in western culture. Tough choices had to be made in order to make this epic tale fit the parameters of a fun Saturday night SciFi Channel flick, and I think those choices paid off. For example, I decided to add a love story which would frame the tale for modern audiences. The crossbow gun was not my creation, by the way, but it happens to be cheap and easy to blow things up in Bulgaria.

G: I think the Rambo 2000 crossbow gun was actually pretty damn cool. But Im glad you mentioned it, because a lot of people out there don't understand the process of storytelling within the constraints of a producer and bottom line run production. Damn those wacky producers.

R: The challenge is delivering a quality story to viewers at home. I think our film stacks up well if not better than some of the other SciFi pictures I've seen, but the power of the original Beowulf narrative of course helped us a lot. If you haven't read it in a while I recommend you do. I had to read it when I was a Freshman in high school and I didn't get it. But going back I was astounded by the beauty of the language and the heroic character of Beowulf and the others.

G: Some of the user comments here indicated that there were some factual mistakes made (i.e. Grendel's mother not being fought underwater, the townspeople being sacrificed etc.) How do you respond to this?

R: We saw the original text as a launching point for the recontextualization of a classic. As I said tough choices had to be made in terms of story and the reality of budgeting. The climatic scene in the poem, where Beowulf confronts Grendel's mother underwater was in the first draft but you know it couldn't be done in the time alloted. As to the second part of your question, believe it or not, the story of children being sacrificed to appease the angry monster is in the original poem. But we chose to emphasize it.

G: Do you see SciFi taking on more literary or epic narratives or adaptations? And what new projects can we expect to see from you in the future?

R: I hope that SciFi continues to take risks by re-envisioning more of the classic tales of the past. Right now I'm writing another film for them, this one set in the present and currently entitled "The Monster". It's a cross between American Werewolf in London meets Excalibur. It should be a hoot.

G: Always a pleasure Ron.

R: Thanks, Glen.

Lady in the Water (2006)

An unexpected fairy's tale.

[8/10 · 21 July 2006]

I think the thing about this movie is that people may go in expecting it to be a weird horror/supernatural thriller. While it does have supernatural elements, its much more of, well, I guess a fairy tale. It's got some great scares but overall it will be enjoyed more if you know ahead of time your not going to be sitting on the edge of your seat.

The theme of "finding your purpose" definitely is poignant in this day and age, I love all the self reflexive humor as far as story structure goes too.

SFX were decent, not awe inspiring but good for what was required. The film is really about the characters though and their arcs. I'd say the film is much more for the introspective crowd than the hardcore comic kids who want plenty of screams.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Pirates of the Convoluted: Long friggin film

[4/10 · 8 July 2006]

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. But by an hour and a half into the film with no real understanding of what was going on I started to doze off. When I awoke there was still another hour or so to sit through.

The actors of course all did a good job. The dialogue and humor was there in the beginning though by the end it wained considerably. The real problem was the plot. This new "curse" that befalls Jack Sparrow gets more complex every five minutes, and nothing is really explained. Near the end the scenes usually go something like this:

"Good lord man where's Davy Jone's key?" - Jack Sparrow "It goes to the box! But where is the box?" - Will "What box? I have his heart!" - Some guy "who are you?" - Jack Sparrow "I'm some guy from the first movie, and I want his heart!" - Some guy "Hey there's a cracken here with tentacles!" - Will "Now I have his heart!" - Some other pirate guy "What about the cracken? And the curse?" - Will "What curse?" - Other pirate guy "The curse of the box!" - Jack "No the curse is on the key!" - Will "No, whoever has the heart has the power!" - Will's dad "What power?" - Keira knightley "Dont mind that, lets fight!" - Jack

OK well its not exactly like that but thats how it feels after sitting through all three mind numbing hours of the film. The big twist ending...is well, lame. They bring back someone - a certain bad guy - to help poor JS out of his jam in some thrown together lame cliff hanger.

I'm not saying everything about the film is bad, but it definitely needed a rewrite before it was released. More doesn't always mean better. Aaaarggghh, what a shame.

No Such Thing (2001)

Could have been much better.

[3/10 · 31 May 2006]

They call this flick a dark comedy, but it fails in both.

The monster makeup and the character is interesting enough, and Polley does a decent job of playing a naive girl thats being manipulated by her boss, but there was a lot of potential for story wasted in very long drawn out scenes.

I understand the film is a cross between beauty and the beast and a modern commentary on media corruption or some such but it just doesn't hit home. The characters are almost too withdrawn for the audience to make any kind of meaningful connection and potentially humorous situations go by without even a chuckle.

It felt like certain characters and elements of the film were thrown together at the last second (ie the wonderful actress Helen Mirren had little to no poignant moments in the film) and a lot of it just felt like the director was trying to "wing it" until he got to climax..which wasn't all that well constructed or climatic.

I really liked the actors in the film but I think they really didn't have much to go on script wise. Perhaps under a different writer and director the flick could have been more impactful and humorous or darker and more moody..but as it stands its just a post-modernistic soup of ideas and no real point.

Silent Hill (2006)

Silent Hill not quite up to snuff.

[7/10 · 22 April 2006]

This is one of the few films that I have trouble saying it is either definitively awesome or totally crappy. Though for writing sake Ill say it leans towards crappy.

Silent Hill follows the desperate search of a mother for her sleep walking daughter, whom she has (they give a fairly lame excuse for it) taken to the ghost town of silent hill.

Of course girl goes missing after a minor car accident and we watch desperate Momma try and figure out where she is and what exactly happened in this town to make it so freakishly twisted.

And let me tell you thats where the movie shines is the twisted. Visually this movie is very scary, the varied denizens of the town and all its twisting realities are the stuff of true nightmares. Unfortunately so are parts of the script.

My real problem with Silent Hill is that it has a lot of potential story wise but some major plot holes really screw it over. The reason for the towns burning is eventually given but not a very clear way. The origins of the evil are again mentioned but not really expounded on. And the origins of Momma's little girl are fairly hard to believe (as is the whole who is the her real father question, something that is never answered). Some of the dialogue is a tad cheesy and a fair amount of the directing could use work (The female cop wearing stereotypical shades at night is minor but really annoying when I think about it...I mean c'mon who wears sunglasses at midnight?) The final scenes of the film are a pretty big let down. I came away wondering if the mother (and symbolically the forces of good) really did win, and what exactly was going on.

Silent Hill definitely is better than most video game to movie adaptations but it still has a long ways to go before it equals far better films in this genre. I give it a C-

American Wet Dream (2001)

A new vision of spirituality

[8/10 · 29 March 2006]

How easily will the modern man of sorrow's give up his soul? The price is a steak. It's a quirky question that drives at the heart of this short film's theme.

Devon Gallegos, our silent protagonist, brings a sort of dirtied innocence to the film, any every man bumbler and though major dialogue may be missing from the film, Mr. Gallegos's presence and posturings more than make up for it.

Rising visionary Daniel Roemer has offered us a intelligent look of Webster's dance with the devil. What really catches my eye in the film is the simple yet gritty cinematography, from the gramaphone pull out to the final insane nightmare of the protagonist. More a cross between Fellini's Italian kitchen sink realism and Kubrick-esquire nightmare vision than what I'd expect from a new name like Roemer.

Keep your eyes open Hollywood. There's a new director on the block and he packs quite a punch.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

Very well thought out Thriller

[9/10 · 10 September 2005]

I came into this film with no real expectations other than to be entertained and possibly, hopefully, see an intelligent film on the subject of spirituality. I think some people are turned off by the movie because they go in expecting "The Exorcist" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", thankfully Derickson does a much better job of depicting true to life events better than those two. The movie very clearly states it is a courtroom horror/thriller film. And it delivers.

The actors all do a top notch job, Linney especially depicts a typical agnostic very well and I think Derrickson is very fair to both sides of the spiritual debate. He intentionally leaves the question up for the viewer to really decide, as it should be, but I think the ultimate fate of the priest in courtroom...

*SPOILER*** That being that he is found guilty and yet set free reflects wonderfully on the idea of God's grace given to mankind. We are all found "guilty" and yet pardoned.

*********

Some of the events depicted are reminiscent of films like the Omen and Amityville Horror, but, to be fair they added to the entertainment value without taking away too much from the realism and real questions the film brings up for each of us to consider.

Hollywood very seldomly depicts Christianity in a good light or makes real statement about spirituality, This is one of the good ones. I highly recommend it.

Sometimes They Come Back... for More (1998 Video)

Poo on film

[1/10 · 29 August 2005]

I was actually hoping this film didn't have anything to do with the last two installments and that the titles were just similar..man was i wrong. If this p.o.s can be called a sequel then Hollywood is truly an awful place to make films.

The movie starts off a lot like The Thing (a much better horror film)but slowly degrades into a manure pile, having to figure out who's killing who, where the bodies are being taken, zombies are around, someone is dead, now they aren't, now they are, the guy's brother is behind it all, and oh yeah, hes a demon and turns out our protagonist is a demon too, but, you know, with a good heart, who falls in love with the girl and saves the day.

Thats pretty much the film and it sucks, so now I've saved u the pain of watching it, go do something better with your time. Really folks, skip this one.

The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)

All the powers in the universe cant save this schlock.

[1/10 · 14 November 2004]

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. Pitch Black made for a good rental but this haphazard over-hyped piece of space poop sequel did little to make me want to see the rest of the "Riddick Trilogy" the director wants to do. The plot was cliché at best and down right retarded at worst. Characters were of course one dimensional and most were pretty pointless. The effects while decent do little to change the fact that this movie's script sucked, I shudder to think that any actor would have read it and said "Hey this looks good!"

Several holes are left throughout the story and the whole thing just felt like Hollywood trying to capitalize on a big epic themed movie, ala LOTR but, you know, without all the meaning and depth.

Don't EVER SEE THIS FILM UNLESS you want something to throw your popcorn at.

Van Helsing (2004)

Almost painful to watch

[1/10 · 31 October 2004]

I don't know if Sommers is trying to be campy and retarded when he made this or if he really thinks he made a scary movie...either way this piece of junk was painful to sit through. The scariest thing throughout was THE DIALOGUE, it sounded as if Sommer's 12 yr old nephew wrote most of it. The acting was expectedly bad but Dracula was so over the top, that I found myself fast forwarding through his parts (yes I rented, no way in hell was I going to pay nine dollars to see this).

The plot was completely predictable as most of Sommers films are, the special effects were outlandish - part of the reason of a no scare factor is that almost all the monsters were cgi'd in, looking more like cartoons, than anything else. The old horror films Sommers is trying to pay homage to had waaaayyyy more class this his modern day crapnanza.

Save yourself the pain of this film, its not a good horror flick, its a lousy action flick, there's no real comedy, and drama...well you'd get more drama from watching cspan than this thing...surprisingly the DVD does make a good frisbee.

Feardotcom (2002)

CrapDotFilm

[1/10 · 26 October 2004]

I think this movie tried to be bad, I mean actively bad, actively predictable and actively boring. I don't usually fall asleep in horror films, this one I did. Dialogue, characters, WRITING, all terrible. By the time the ending comes along most people have already left.

However if you like mindless gore with many, many predictable twists, then , yes go ahead and waste a few hours of your life watching this junk.

I wish I could be more specific about the films faults, except that its such a forgettable excuse for a movie, I don't really want to rewatch it again to give a more detailed review. Just trust me on this one.

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Much better than I expected.

[8/10 · 20 August 2004]

After sitting through a lot of garbage this summer (Avp being the biggest one of them all), I wasn't expecting too much from this franchised sequel. In fact the only thing that piqued my interest was that Morgan Creek had spent a ton of time and money getting this made, they seemingly cared so much that it was completely re-shot after Schrader left. My point. The film is very good.

Real Kudos should go to Caleb Carr and Renny Harlin, this film compliments the original Exorcist very well, and still maintains its own story, depth and horror. I was relieved when I saw that the film was not simply a flashy rehash of a green vomit spewing kid on a bed. There is so much more that adds to the feel and tone, that I was really impressed.

Is it scary? Short answer: Hell yes. Long answer: Yes BUT not in the same way the original was. Though the ending (I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying there's an exorcism that takes place in the movie) is very scary, what really got me was all the build up, not just the jump out of your seat moments (there are quite a few) but also the slow dread that falls on you as you see the African camp fall apart. Some of the scares I saw coming, but there were many that I did not. One of which put a real twist on everything.

What really shines in the movie is Merrin's own personal struggle to regain his faith, for that storyline alone it made the movie well worth the price of admission.

The Exorcist III (1990)

An interesting, albeit flawed follow-up

[15 July 2004]

First things first...this is not THE EXORCIST. It will probably not scare you like the first one did, why? Because in all earnestly, its a totally different kind of film, genre-wise.

Exorcist 3 has more in common with se7en than it does with its predecessors (in the case of Exorcist 2 that is a good thing). While the original Friedkin film was very much a built up tension, demonic house of horrors, this film takes the point of view of Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) trying to piece together a string of grisly ritualistic murders.

*SPOILERS*

Ultimately he finds that all the murders are copycats of an infamous "Gemini Killer"'s m.o. - though he got the chair 15 years before. The victims are all connected by an exorcism that took place at that same time, 15 years back, (you guessed it, Reagan's). Long and short of it -

turns out Father Karras didn't quite die that infamous night - he was repossessed* by the soul of the Gemini killer and subsequently put into an asylum/hospital where he stayed a vegetable until the murders start up again 15 years later. Murders abound and before you know it Kinderman's family is targeted - (apparently Mr. Gemini can possess several people at once, including geriatric senile patients from the hospital). Kinderman saves the day then rushes back to the hospital to help some priest "exorcise" the Gemini/demon from Karras. The exorcism ends in bloodshed (apparently Blatty doesn't have much faith in the power of the ritual itself).

*END SPOILERS

Blatty does a good job connecting the characters of this film with the original and creating a somewhat unique story that is subtly connected to the first film. There are quite a few "jump out of your seat" moments in the film to call it a horror, but none that really come close to the original's downright sense of dread. Where the first movie really built up the horror of the possession, this one sort of just springs it on you in spurts, most of it taking place in the last five minutes of the film.

One major problem I had with the movie is the fact that the exorcism supposedly plays a major part in the film and yet the priest who does it barely gets more than ten minutes of screen time, no motivation, and very little dialogue. That and the whole dynamic of Patient X's (you know who) possession gets a little muddled...sometimes its the Gemini and sometimes it seems more like its a demon...a little confusing.

Basically if your a fan of the first one and you want a few scares go check the movie out. If you're looking for a real sleepless night though , best to forget this one and go for something a little less convoluted.

*Strangely enough, Linda blair released her Exorcist spoof "repossessed" at the same time Exorcist 3 was released. Too bad both were lame.