Starring:
James McAvoy
Michael Fassbender
Jennifer Lawrence
January Jones
Movies based on comic books can be hit or miss, and with an established rabid fanbase, there's always a danger when adapting a beloved series like The X-Men. After seeing several trailers for the newest X-Men incarnation, I was pretty sure it was going to be good, and I was not disappointed.
X-Men: First Class reveals the back stories for several of the core X-Men characters, including Magneto, Professor X, Mystique, and Emma Frost (the White Queen). Eric Lensherr (Magneto) is separated from his parents as they arrive at a Polish concentration camp. As he reaches for them, the iron gates bend and twist. His power is discovered by Dr. Schmidt (Kevin Bacon), who tortures him in an effort to harness the power. Charles Xavier, the future Professor X, discovers Raven Darkholme (Mystique), stealing food from his fridge and takes her in.
Twenty years later, Lensherr (Fassbender) is on a revenge mission to find and kill the elusive Dr. Schmidt. Xavier (McAvoy) is a newly appointed professor, traveling with Raven (Lawrence) posing as his sister. In Las Vegas, CIA operative Moira McTaggart is staking out the Hellfire Club and witnesses clear evidence of genetic human mutation. She seeks out Professor Xavier, an expert on mutation, and he begins working for the CIA, using a thought amplifying machine to find other mutants. He and McTaggart discover Sebastian Shaw and his team are a threat to national security. They join up with Lensherr and create a team of mutants to fight Shaw and his accomplices. As their presence among regular humans becomes more obvious, the people they are protecting become a larger threat as well.
This flick is stylish and smart, with gorgeous period costuming and plenty of inside references for devoted X-Men fans. The casting was excellent, and Fassbender and McAvoy are pitch perfect in their prospective roles. I'm usually not fond of January Jones, but she was definitely the right choice to play Emma Frost and any doubts of Jennifer Lawrence's suitability for Mystique were blown away by a cameo by Rebecca Romijn (the original film version of Mystique). Although the film has grossed the least at the box office of all the previous X-Men movies, I think it is the best so far and I am eager to see the second and third films in this series.
I think X-Men fans will enjoy this film, and it is an excellent starting point for those who are unfamiliar with the series. The special effects are very well-done and there are several humorous moments that provide levity in between some very serious scenes. It's definitely worth seeing in theaters, especially for comic fans.
Filmmakers who decide to make remakes seem to do so at their peril. They walk a very fine line - too close to the source material and they are deemed derivative; if they stray too far, they risk the ire of the original's fans. Here are some common problems:
Some Movies Shouldn't be Remade
Some films are so iconic and rooted in our culture that it would be a crime to remake them. (Can you imagine Citizen Kane or The Godfather being remade?) Occasionally, the subject matter makes the film almost impossible to recreate (Freaks).
There are also films that are so unique that they can't be replicated. An excellent example of this is Wes Craven's first film, TheLast House on the Left. Based on a Swedish ballad (which also spawned the Ingmar Bergman film The Virgin Spring), made in 1972, and shot in a grainy, realistic fashion, the movie was Craven's commentary on the Vietnam war. It is a raw and incredibly violent film and it culls a visceral reaction from the viewer. Rob Zombie, a horror flick director and gorehound, said, "It feels like you're watching a snuff film." Clearly, it's not a movie for people who get grossed out easily, but according to the filmmakers, the gore had a purpose. This was not the case with the 2009 remake. Although Craven produced the new version, it had neither the sucker punch effect of the original, nor the gritty, realistic feel. It was just another slick, big budget slasher flick with a story line that vaguely resembled the original film. The biggest mistake: Remaking the film in the first place. The Last House on the Left is a seminal horror film and it's virtually impossible to recapture the essence of the original movie. The filmmakers would have been better off creating a completely new storyline and just making a standard horror flick.
Some Remakes are Just Bad
The best example of this is Frank Oz's disastrous version of The Stepford Wives. The original film, made in 1975 and adapted from Ira Levin's short novel of the same name, has become a sci-fi classic. Oz intended to make an updated version of the film to appeal to modern audiences, and by his own admission, got carried away by the big budget and star-studded cast. Several changes were made throughout production and the story was transformed from a subtle domestic sci-fi thriller to an overly stylized farce with ridiculous gaping plot holes. The biggest mistake: Producers disliked the 1975 film's original dystopic ending, despite it being chiefly responsible for the flick's creepy atmosphere and lasting effect on audiences. As a result, the 2004 version's muddled happy ending made Oz's film all the more laughable.
Few Remakes Add Anything Substantial to the Story
Even when remakes are decently made, they very rarely add anything of value to the pre-existing story. This is especially true of shot-for-shot remakes, which I have never understood. Do we really need to see Psycho done exactly like Hitchcock did it, but in color and with Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn? (The answer is "No".)
Take A Nightmare On Elm Street, for example. I thought Jackie Earle Haley did a good job as Freddy, but there wasn't anything that made the film stand out from the original version. In fact, all the remake made me want to do was go back and watch the original. The filmmakers of the 2010 version told the media they wanted to make a "darker" version of the franchise. The biggest mistake: They focused more on Freddy's back story as a child molester to give him a clearer motive for killing the teenagers, which to me, seems unnecessary, given that Freddy Krueger is a dream figure. I'd argue that the film didn't need to be remade in the first place, but their best opportunity for making the newer version stand out wasn't motive, it was bigger and better kills.
Everyone Has a Different Opinion
Movie watching is, at its core, subjective. Films are intended to evoke an emotional reaction and it can be difficult to be objective about something you connect with. This usually translates into an overwhelming preference for the original film.
On the other hand, just because the original is a classic, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone likes it better. I'll use myself as an example in this instance. I would venture to say that most people, particularly in my age range, prefer Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) to the more recent Tim Burton revamp Charlie & the Chocolate Factory (2005). Not me. Other than the bizarre Willy Wonka back story, I like Burton's version better.
You're probably thinking, "Isn't Charlie & the Chocolate Factory the epitome of the slick, big-budget remakes you were just complaining about?" It absolutely is, but my preference isn't based on an objective opinion; it's rooted in my feeling about the book both films were based on. Roald Dahl was one of my favorite authors as a kid, so my first exposure to the story was his book and, when I was younger, I was very adamant that film adaptations of books should be exactly like the source material. While I liked Gene Wilder's performance as Willy Wonka, I wasn't a big fan of the movie itself because it wasn't enough like the book.
In contrast, watching Charlie & the Chocolate Factory as an adult brought back vivid memories of reading the book in the back seat of the car as my parents ran errands and laughing at the hilariously twisted Oompa Loompa songs. I was ecstatic that I could pick out lines of dialogue and song in the film that came directly from the text, despite not having read the book for over fifteen years.
The more recent version does have its problem. Burton's directing and visual style tend to overshadow his actual films; the viewer is keenly aware that it is a "Tim Burton Film" while watching one of his movies (especially his more recent films). The Willy Wonka in the 2005 version, while funny, is a creation of Burton and Depp and hardly resembles Dahl's character. (Wilder's performance is actually closer.) None of that matters to me, though. The core of the film and the way it makes me feel is closer to Dahl's book than the 1971 version, and therefore, I like it better. Objectivity often takes a back seat when emotions are involved.
Good Remakes are the Exception, Not the Rule
Two of my favorite sci-fi films are remakes - Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) and The Thing (1982). Invasion of the Body Snatchers was based on the 1956 movie of the same name, and has been remade twice since - once in 1993 as Body Snatchers, and again in 2007 as The Invasion (starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig). The 1978 version was very well received after its release and remains the most popular of the Invasion films. The Thing was a remake of The Thing From Another World (1951), which was adapted from John W. Campbell, Jr.'s novella "Who Goes There?" During it's initial release, The Thing was not a success, but has become known as a sci-fi classic and has achieved cult status. A prequel, also called The Thing, was made in 2010 and is scheduled to be released in October 2011, after its April 2011 release date was pushed back for reshoots (not a good sign).
These two films are both excellent examples of good remakes. I am not a film expert by any means, but here are my ideas on what can make a quality remake:
1. The film is well-cast.
As we've learned from Frank Oz, you can stuff all the big-name actors you want in your movie, if they're not right for the parts, it's going to suck. Both Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Thing have excellent casts and each cast member is extremely effective in his or her role.
2. The film has something that sets it apart from the original.
W. D. Richter's screenplay for Invasion of the Body Snatchers used the source material to create an allegory for the social construct of the "Me Generation" that was so prevalent during the early 70s. He added another layer to the original story that made it especially relevant to the time in which it was released. With The Thing, it was Rob Bottin's amazing special effects that made the remake stand out from the original. (The Norris Thing has become an iconic image in sci-fi cinema.)
3.The filmmakers have their own clear, unique vision.
While I think it's important to acknowledge the source material, it's equally important to set your film apart from it's predecessor. There's no point in remaking a film if it's just going to be a rehash of the original.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers is both paranoia-inducing and disturbingly realistic. Little things in the film let you know that things are getting steadily worse and one of the most effective is the subtle substitution of mechanical noises for natural ones as the invasion progresses. This, and the decision to go with a dystopic ending (rather than the original's more optimistic one) makes this film remain effective.
Taking the setting of The Thing back to the uber-isolated Antarctica of the original novella was a brilliant move and John Carpenter's directing style is tailor-made for the kind of suspense building needed to make this story come alive. Mexican director Guillermo Del Toro says of Carpenter's work on The Thing, "The way Carpenter shoots it is so smart . . . he's extremely spare with his camera. He just makes it almost a mathematical type of montage, where you're feeling relatively secure and then, BAM!"
Remakes will continue to be made, to varying degrees of success. They seem to have become more prevalent in recent years, probably because the popularity of the original films ensures an audience and that means more money and less risk for producers.
One upcoming remake that looks like it could be promising (despite having many of Hollywood's remake cliches) is Craig Gillespie's Fright Night, starring Anton Yelchin, Toni Colette, David Tennant (of "Doctor Who" fame), and Colin Farrell. The original Fright Night was made in 1985 and is a well-loved horror-comedy classic.
What do you think of remakes? What are some of your favorites? Which ones do you not enjoy?
Jinx (over at Totally Jinxed) has an amazing alphabetical list of her current favorite films, and she inspired me to create my own list:
A Amelie(2001)
I love this movie. Audrey Tatou is gorgeous and the entire movie just puts me in a good mood. Even if you are not a fan of foreign films, you should watch this flick.
Honorable Mention:American Psycho (2000) - An excellent adaptation (directed by a woman, no less!) of one of the most disturbing books I have ever read. (Bonus: Christian Bale moonwalks!)
B Beetlejuice (1988)
The flick that introduced me to Tim Burton and Winona Ryder.
C The Changeling (1980)
George C. Scott stars in this early '80s ghost story that made red rubber balls terrifying.
Honorable Mention:The Children (2008) - An awesome British indie horror movie about psychokiller kids.
D The Devil's Backbone (2001)
Guillermo Del Toro's beautiful and haunting ghost story, set during the Spanish civil war.
Honorable Mention:Death Proof (2007) - My favorite Tarantino film - nothing better than Kurt Russell and kick-ass chicks!
E The Exorcist (1973)
I have to go with Jinx on this one. William Friedkin's The Exorcist is in my Top Ten best films of all time list for several reasons, including (but not limited to) the faithful adaptation of the novel, the amazing cast, Dick Smith's incredible makeup and special effects, and Mercedes McCambridge's bone-chilling voice work. Not to mention that this flick has serious staying power.
Honorable Mention:Edward Scissorhands (1990) - A beautiful, dark love story with a cameo from Vincent Price.
F Fido (2006)
A kitschy zombie satire starring Billy Connolly and Carrie-Anne Moss. In an alternative universe 1950s, the zombie war results in collared zombies working as servants in suburbia.
Honorable Mention:Fallen (1998) - A subtle demonic possession film starring Denzel Washington. (Bonus: A small role by one of my favorite character actors, Elias Koteas.)
G Ginger Snaps (2000)
Two sisters who are obsessed with death must deal with boys, growing up, and high school - all while protecting the secret that one of them is a werewolf.
Honorable Mention: Ghost World (2001) - Clever adaptation of Daniel Clowes's graphic novel of the same name. Thora Birch is a pitch-perfect Enid Coleslaw.
Honorable Mention:House of 1,000 Corpses (2003) - I was shocked that I liked this film, but I totally did. It's a fun horror flick, which tends to be pretty rare.
I Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
One of the few times that the remake is actually better than the original. It's one of my favorite sci-fi flicks of all time.
Honorable Mention:It's All About Love (2003) - Made by a Danish director with an A-List Hollywood cast (Sean Penn, Claire Danes, and a pre-fake break down Joaquin Phoenix), this film isn't really good, but it is incredibly weird, so it's worth the watch.
J Jawbreaker (1999)
This film was pretty heavily panned when it first came out, but I liked it so much better than the regular teen fare that Hollywood was pumping out at the time (Clueless, et al.)
Honorable Mention:Jennifer's Body (2009) - This Diablo Cody penned movie is chock full of references to both '80s teen flicks and classic horror films. Much better than I expected it to be, considering it stars Megan Fox.
K Kick-Ass (2010)
In addition to being funny, this movie kicks a lot of ass. Based on the awesome comic series of the same name.
Honorable Mention:Kill Bill (2003) - Tarantino's super-stylized take on kung fu flicks.
L Let the Right One In (2008)
The gorgeous Swedish film based on the novel of the same name by John Ajvide Lindqvist.
M Mirrormask (2005)
Inspired by Alice in Wonderland and written by Neil Gaiman equals this girl's dream come true.
Honorable Mention:Marie Antoinette (2006) - Based on the life of the doomed Austrian-born French queen, Sofia Coppola's film is a beautiful feast for the eyes with a modern twist.
N A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
The first (and best) of many Freddy Krueger films. The school hallway scene alone makes this movie worth watching. (Bonus: Johnny Depp gets sucked into a bed.)
Honorable Mentions:Night of the Living Dead (1968) - George Romero's game-changing zombie flick. Near Dark (1987) - Behold the awesomeness that is Lance Henriksen.
O The Omen (1976)
Again, gotta go with Jinx on this one. I love The Omen and I watch it every Halloween. You can't go wrong with evil kids, scary music, and Billie Whitelaw.
Honorable Mention:The Others (2001) - A stylish ghost story with a solid twist ending.
P Psycho (1960)
This was arguably Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece and almost singlehandedly created the slasher genre.
Honorable Mention:Phantasm (1979) - Who wasn't scared of the Tall Man as a kid?
Q Quiz Show (1994)
The Oscar-nominated film about the scandal surrounding 1950s quiz shows like "Twenty One". Ralph Fiennes is excellent in this film.
R Requiem for a Dream (2000) This film is excellent. It also makes me want to curl into the fetal position while simultaneously rocking back and forth every time I watch it.
Honorable Mention: Reservoir Dogs (1992) - Michael Madsen singing "Stuck in the Middle With You" into an ear. That is all.
Honorable Mentions: Shallow Grave (1994) - Danny Boyle's first film about an unlikeable trio of roommates who happen upon a suitcase full of money . . . and a dead body they must get rid of. Seven (1995) - David Fincher's dark, twisting view of humanity. (Bonus: Brad Pitt screaming, "What's in the box?" We do this every time we get a package and it's still funny.)
Honorable Mention:The Tenant (1976) - Roman Polanski stars in and directs this bizzare testament to the hell of apartment living.
U The Uninvited (1944) A classic black and white ghost story starring Ray Milland (from Dial M for Murder), notable for being one of the first Hollywood films to depict a haunting as a serious supernatural event.
V The Vanishing (1988) The Dutch thriller with a shocking ending.
Honorable Mentions:Village of the Damned (1960) - Wolf Rilla's adaptation of The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham. A very creepy black and white classic. V for Vendetta (2006) - A gorgeous film based on the Alan Moore graphic novel of the same name.
W The Wicker Man (1973) An amazing British film with the incomparable Christopher Lee and a brilliant performance from Edward Woodward. (I was really tempted to put the "Not the Bees" scene from the 2006 Wicker Man on here, but I decided against it. You're welcome.)
X X-Men (2000) Bryan Singer brings the wildly popular superheroes to life. (I'm super excited about the upcoming X-Men: First Class, by the way.)
Y Yes Man (2008) A surprisingly funny Jim Carrey flick about one man's transformation into a positive person. (Bonus: They go to Lincoln, NE!)
Z Zombieland (2009) A hilarious and goreriffic zombie flick.
Honorable Mention: Zodiac (2007) - David Fincher's adaptation of Robert Graysmith's book about the real-life serial killer who terrorized San Fransisco during the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Actors hate being typecast, but they are often tapped for the same type of role repeatedly because of how they can become that character. (Examples: Jesse Eisenberg and socially awkward nerds, Samuel L. Jackson and badasses, Hugh Grant and flustered male leads in romantic comedies) Actors who make good villains are notoriously typecast, something they probably don't enjoy, but that works to the audience's benefit (as we get amazing performances). Submitted for your approval are my Top Five picks for actors who make awesome villains:
5. Gary Oldman
Oldman is probably the least pigeonholed actor on my list, as he has had a long and varied career. Some of his best known performances include Sid Vicious in Sid and Nancy, Sirius Black in the Harry Potter series, and Commissioner Gordon in Christopher Nolan's recent Batman reboots. It is his intensity and commitment to his characters that makes him an excellent actor . . . and an excellent villain. Catch his bad guy turns in flicks like The Fifth Element, True Romance, and Bram Stoker's Dracula
My pick for best villain role:
Corrupt DEA agent Norman Stansfield in Leon (aka The Professional)
4. Malcom McDowell
It is easy to see why McDowell tends to be typecast in villainous roles. He has a very intense-looking face and a sinister-sounding voice, both of which enhance his excellent performances. In addition to his many on-camera roles, McDowell has done a lot of voice-over work for documentaries and video games. Some of his most famous villains can be found in Caligula, Star Trek Generations, Tank Girl, and the first season of acclaimed series "Heroes".
My pick for best villain role:
Cliche, but true - Psychopath and classical music lover Alexander DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange
3. Christopher Walken
Even when Walken plays a seemingly innocuous role, he creeps the bejeebers out of me, so he had to have a place on this list. Although in more recent years he is more known for his comedic turns (especially his repeated SNL appearances) and his surprisingly good dance moves in Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice" music video, he's played plenty of villains throughout his career. The unusual cadence in his speaking voice and his deep-set eyes make for a unnerving villain, especially in films like King of New York, Last Man Standing, and The Prophecy.
My pick for best villain role:
Walken fans would probably select renegade archangel Gabriel in The Prophecy (and rightly so)*, but I have to go with the Headless Horseman from Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow. Never have a set of teeth so haunted my dreams.
2. Clancy Brown
Brown is a dark horse contender in a list of heavy hitters, but he's also an amazing character actor. This makes him my go-to guy for the number two spot. The combination of his acting skill, his imposing frame, and his mega deep baritone voice make him tailor-made for villain roles. His incredible voice has scored him a large amount of voice-over work, especially in animated comic book features. He can be seen on-screen in The Shawshank Redemption, Pet Semetary II, and Highlander.
My pick for best villain role:
Nefarious preacher Brother Justin Crowe in the short-lived, but amazing HBO series "Carnivale"
1. Christopher Lee
In my book, Lee is the end all and be all of actors in villainous roles. Knighted in 2009, Lee holds the Guinness World Record for most film acting roles. Throughout his illustrious career, he has played everything from Count Dracula several times over (in the iconic Hammer horror films) to the Jabberwocky in Tim Burton's version of Alice in Wonderland.
My pick for best villain role:
It's a tie: King Haggard in The Last Unicorn (purely for nostalgic reasons) and the evil wizard Saruman in The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
*Seriously, if you haven't seen this film, you definitely should - if only for the excellent cast. In addition to Walken it includes Eric Stolz, Elias Koteas, and arguably Viggo Mortensen's best (and most underrated) performance.
So, let's hear it. Who are some of your favorite villains?
Editor's Note: One of my readers asked about Creepshow and my response was a little longer than I had planned, so here is a mini review of the flick:
Creepshow (1982)
Rated R (for violence)
Directed by George Romero
Starring:
Adrienne Barbeau
Leslie Neilsen
Ted Danson
E. G. Marshall
Creepshow was King's and Romero's love letter to the horror comics of the 1950s, including Tales From the Crypt, and it's really a precursor to the "Tales From the Crypt" television show and other horror anthology shows like "Tales from the Darkside" (also a King/Romero collaboration). It borrows elements from the comics and the scares and gross-outs are mostly played for laughs. Because King wrote the screenplay, his influence is more obvious than Romero's and the flick is a little dated, but no more so than other films of that era. The movie is supposed to be campy, so the special effects (done by SFX veteran and Romero favorite Tom Savini) are exaggerated and B movie-esque.
The most effective vignettes are "Something to Tide You Over" and "They're Creeping Up On You", but I enjoyed "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" just for the novelty of seeing Stephen King act in something besides a two minute cameo. I would definitely recommend the movie for those that enjoy horror comedy and/or anthology tales, but if you're a horror purist, you may want skip it.
Netflix Instant Play has given me access to some pretty amazing documentaries, including several that focus on the horror genre. Here are my Top 5 horror film documentaries available on Netflix:
5. Bloodsucking Cinema
This documentary is a Starz feature centered on vampire films (no Twilight - only the real thing). Everything from Nosferatu to Interview with a Vampire is featured (unfortunately even a few duds like Bloodrayne and Van Helsing) and there is some discussion about the different ways vampires are presented (ie. scary versus alluring).
4. Zombiemania
Another hour long Starz documentary, this one is about zombie flicks and how they've influenced and changed our culture. The documentary includes interviews with several big names in the genre, including Tom Savini (SFX veteran), Maitland McDonagh (film critic and horror fan), and the father of zombie films as we know them today: George Romero. The doc is concise and explains a lot of the nuances of zombie films. An added bonus: zombification of the experts by zombie portrait artist Rob Sacchetto.
3. 100 Years of Horror
Hosted by the amazing Christopher Lee, this doc goes to the very beginning of the genre and works its way through the late 90s when the film was made. This is a perfect documentary for those that prefer the golden age of horror (including the iconic Universal movie monsters). There are some amazing rarities, including home movies, outtakes, and previously unseen screen tests from some of horror's heavy hitters.
2. Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film
This doc premiered on Starz, but is based on the book of the same name by Adam Rockoff. It's an in-depth look at the slasher sub-genre, complete with gory clips and interviews with major people involved in the flicks. Because it's a two hour special, Going to Pieces can focus on more minutiae than some of the other docs on my list. Those being interviewed talk about the high and low points of the genre, acknowledging the strengths and definite weaknesses that slasher flicks present, thereby giving a fairly objective look at one of the more controversial genres of film.
1. Fantastic Flesh
This is my favorite of the Starz docs, and other than a brief discussion of the makeup for Chronicles of Narnia, it focuses on some of the amazing practical effects shown in horror films. Legendary SFX veterans are featured, including Dick Smith (The Exorcist), Rick Baker (An American Werewolf in London), Tom Savini (the Romero films and Friday the 13th), and the incomprable Greg Nicotero. For anyone interested in horror films and how they are made, Fantastic Flesh is facinating.
Darren Aronosfsky is known for his dark, surreal films that straddle the line between drama and horror. His latest is the much-discussed and much-lauded Black Swan. The film centers on Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), a dedicated ballerina who teeters on the edge of sanity after being given the coveted role of the Swan Queen in Swan Lake.
Nina is a perfectionist with flawless technique, but her emotional state is extremely fragile. Sheltered by her obsessive and manipulative mother, she is naïve, reserved, and often overlooked by the ballet director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel). After rumors circulate that the company’s principle dancer, Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder), is being forced to retire, Nina sees her chance to be cast as the lead in Leroy’s adaptation of Swan Lake. She auditions, but Leroy is hesitant to give her the part because she lacks the passion to dance the part of the evil and seductive Black Swan. Nina lands the role, but is dismayed to learn that newcomer Lily (Mila Kunis) will be her understudy. Nina’s already tentative self-confidence is shaken to the core and she becomes convinced that Lily is trying to destroy her and steal the part. She experiences strange and violent hallucinations that spiral her into a state of complete paranoia. She is determined to give a perfect performance, even if she loses her mind in the process.
From the beginning of the film, it is clear that Aronofsky’s theme focuses on mirrors and reflections. Throughout the movie, Nina and Lily are presented as reflections of one another, with Lily representing Nina’s darker side – the side she needs to embrace to become the Black Swan. Slowly, Nina’s own reflection takes on a life of its own as she becomes darker and more disturbed. As with many of his films, Aronofsky plays with reality, tricking both his main character and his audience with subtle shifting imagery. The climax brings all of the surreal imagery together, culminating in Nina’s breakdown. He also uses repeated sounds and dialogue layered under the film’s score in pivotal moments to heighten the audience’s sense of unease. The movie is skillfully crafted, down to the fluid way the camera moves with the dancers, throwing the audience in the middle of the action. I was very impressed with the CGI special effects. They could have easily been overdone, but Aronofsky uses them to enhance the more frightening scenes – never detracting from the actors’ performances.
Ultimately, the performances make this film what it is. Portman is exquisite in her portrayal of the fragile Nina. From the start of the film, we see she is in pain and her fall into paranoia and delusion is not only believable, but seems utterly inevitable. She is already on edge, and being cast as the lead pushes her over. Her personality changes never seem forced and her transformation into the Black Swan is compelling. Barbara Hershey gives a very strong performance as Nina’s overbearing mother and Cassel does an excellent job as the Svengali-like ballet director.
It is easy to see why Black Swan is so highly praised and I find it refreshing that it became a mainstream success, as many surreal films don’t experience that kind of popularity. The art direction and cinematography are gorgeous, as is the dancing, and I guarantee this film will haunt you. If you have the chance to see it in the theater, I highly recommend it, as the darkness and large screen definitely enhances the darker, more frightening scenes.
You probably already know that some of the guys (Mike Nelson, Kevin Murphy, and Bill Corbett) from "Mystery Science Theater 3000" have formed RiffTrax, producing downloadable riff commentaries for films that range from B-movies to recent releases. What you may not know is that some of their most popular titles and collections of shorts are available on Netflix. The guys are trying to start a campaign via Twitter (@BillCorbett, @kwmurphy, @michaeljnelson) to move these titles to the "Instant Play" catalogue - a move guaranteed to get them more hits, but Netflix says there has to be more demand for RiffTrax to make the move. Support your favorite bots and add the RiffTrax titles to your queue. I highly recommend Plan 9 From Outer Space, Night of the Living Dead, and any of the short collections. (While you're there, you can add classic "MST3K" titles to your Instant queue!)
There's some exciting news from AMC! "The Walking Dead", the cable channel's new series based on the graphic novel of the same name, has received a second season!!!
In other TV news, Conan O'Brien's new show, "Conan", is premiering tonight on TBS. Although experts have projected that O'Brien's ratings will not be able to compete with "The Tonight Show" (by virtue of being on cable versus network television), I hope he will be very successful and I will be a regular viewer, as I was a fan of "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" from way back. Go Team Conan!!!
Mike White has been offered the chance to direct Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, which is exciting, considering his success with School of Rock. I think White is an excellent choice and I am crossing my fingers that he will accept the offer. Scarlett Johansson has been approached to play Elizabeth Bennett and Bradley Cooper has signed on to play Darcy. I am definitely looking forward to this hilarious adaptation coming to the big screen.
Army of Darkness (1993) Rated R (for violence, language, and gore)
Directed by Sam Raimi
Starring: Bruce Campbell Embeth Davidtz Marcus Gilbert Bill Moesely
I love the Evil Dead movies, but this one has a special place in my heart because it was the first horror flick I ever saw. Comedy Central had it on one year, close to Halloween, and I happened to be baby-sitting that night. My dad had planned to watch it, but had expressly instructed me not to, because he felt like it would be too scary. Needless to say, I was too intrigued not to check it out and it was awesome.
After a quick recounting of the first two movies, Ash (Bruce Campbell) finds himself in medieval England. He is captured by Lord Arthur (Marcus Gilbert), mistaken for one of Duke Henry's soldiers. The village's Wise Man recognizes Ash as their foretold savior from the Deadites. Ash is thrown into "the Pit" and attacked by two Deadites, but is able to defeat them easily, making him the village hero. He is sent to retrieve the Necronomicon, the only thing that can send him back to his own time. He ends up fighting an evil version of himself and the entire Deadite army.
This film is campy, but it's supposed to be. I think I loved it as a kid because it was like a "Mystery Science Theater 3000" flick, but funny on it's own, without the commentary. Army of Darkness was not as well-received as the other films, but it's a great funny horror movie and you really can't go wrong with Bruce Campbell. I view it as less of a true sequel to the Evil Dead films, and more of a separate film that also features Ash.
Fright Rating: 1 gasp out of a possible 5
This flick is not really scary and the gore is played for laughs. If you like cult films or splatstick, you will love Army of Darkness (and the Evil Dead films).
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) Rated R (for violence, language, and disturbing images)
Directed by Jonathan Demme
Starring: Jodie Foster Anthony Hopkins Ted Levine Scott Glenn
The Silence of the Lambs is based on Thomas Harris's novel of the same name. The film was extremely well-received and swept the top five Academy Awards. It did come under fire, however, from gay rights activists (for the perceived negative stereotypical portrayal of the transgender Buffalo Bill) and from feminists like Betty Friedan (who decried the depiction of the evisceration and skinning of women).
FBI Academy trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is tapped to interview infamous psychiatrist-turned-cannibal killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). Initially, she is told that the interview is for a routine update on Lecter's file, but Clarice quickly figures out that the FBI is probing the imprisoned doctor to glean information on a vicious serial killer, "Buffalo Bill" (Ted Levine). Bill kills plus-size women and removes sections of their skin. She must develop a give-and-take relationship with Lecter and discover Bill's true identity before a prominent senator's daughter becomes his next victim.
This was an unusual film for Demme to direct. His previous experience had mostly been in comedies, but he presents a dark, malevolent world in Silence of the Lambs. The architecture and several of the sets have a large Gothic influence and Demme's close POV shots during discussions between two characters (particularly those between Lecter and Clarice) make the audience intimately feel like part of the film.
There are some particularly nice sequences in the flick. One, showing moths fluttering around a collection of multi-colored thread spools, is both beautiful and foreshadowing. A short scene between two entomologists playing chess with bugs is humorous and wonderfully lit. The "butterflied crucifixion" scene is also beautiful in its own grotesque way - a testament to Tak Fujimoto's excellent cinematography.
**WARNING: SPOILERS**
Concerning the two major criticisms of the film (listed in the first paragraph), I do not agree with them. Dr. Lecter assures Clarice in the film that Buffalo Bill is not really transgendered. He is a psychopath with a deep sense of self-loathing - deep enough that he would go to great lengths to change his identity. He never identifies as gay (although critics point to his poodle named Precious as a clear sign), and indeed, most gay serial killers murder men, not women. Bill's motives for his murders are a huge part of the plot in the novel and to adapt Harris's story well it was vital to keep it intact for the film. As for Freidan and other feminist's views, I do not think that the film denigrates women simply because it shows women as victims of violent murders. The simple fact is that women are murdered, and occasionally, those murders include mutilation. For some serial killers, it is part of their M.O. The film portrayed this kind of murder in a realistic way - not in a way that condemns the victims. In fact, feminist critics should be overjoyed to see a brilliant, well-rounded female hero played by a talented actress who looks like a "regular" woman. If this film were made now, someone like Angelina Jolie would probably end up playing Clarice Starling.
I do take issue with the interpretation of the "good" serial killer and the "bad" serial killer, however. Because Lecter is intelligent, charming, and cultured, moviegoers tend to see him as sort of an anti-hero. Bill, on the other hand, is a "weirdo". He kidnaps women and keeps them in a pit in his basement. He sews their skin into a "woman suit". He is reviled as the villain, but when Lecter makes his escape near the end of the film (killing two guards and a paramedic in the process), the audience almost roots for him to succeed. Yet, both these men are guilty of the same crime - the ruthless slaughter of human beings for their own pleasure.*
**END OF SPOILERS**
Like so many of my favorite films, the gorgeous camera work and captivating sets are only the icing on the cake. The film's strongest success lies with the performances of the three principal actors. Foster is an amazing actress and she is so good in this film. Her own innate intelligence (she is a Yale honors graduate) helps add realism to her character and her appearance and the way she carries herself is in keeping with a female FBI agent. (Incidentally, I have to give props to the costuming department. It would have been very easy to dress Foster in designer clothes for the flick, but by keeping her wardrobe simple and functional it made her character very believable.) Foster's few emotional scenes are also played very well and give her character depth. Hopkins is also a brilliant actor and he manages to make Lecter cultured and extremely creepy at the same time. The ways he holds himself and the intensity of his eyes do wonders for his character. Levine is skin-crawlingly creepy, and it has a lot to do with his voice, which is deep, but warbly at the same time (He puts this to good use in the film Joy Ride, playing the voice of the psychopathic trucker, "Rusty Nail"). He makes a very good villain, but is probably most recently known for playing Lt. Stottlemeyer on the television series "Monk".
Fright Rating: 3 gasps out of a possible 5
The film has a combination of psychological and jump scares, as well as a few gory autopsy scenes, but the scariest scene is arguably Bill's dance (definitely NSFW!). This is an excellent, thought-provoking film and a wonderful flick for those who aren't usually horror fans.
*This is not the fault of the filmmakers, or even Harris, but the American moviegoers who interpret the film this way.
The Little Girl Who Lived Down the Lane (1976) Rated R (for language and brief nudity)
Directed by Nicolas Gessner
Starring: Jodie Foster Martin Sheen Alexis Smith Scott Jacoby
The Little Girl Who Lived Down the Lane is a mid-70s thriller based on the novel of the same name by Laird Koeinig. Koeinig, who also wrote the script, adapted the story into a stage play shortly after the book was written.
The film opens as 13 year old Rynn Jacobs (Jodie Foster) is celebrating her birthday alone. She is interrupted by Frank Hallet (Martin Sheen) the obnoxious son of the Jacobs's landlady and a reputed pedophile. Rynn must explain away her father's absence to Frank, and to his nosy mother, Cora (Alexis Smith). When Mrs. Hallet discovers Rynn's secret, she pays dearly for her invasion of privacy. Brilliant and independent Rynn, along with her new love interest Mario (Scott Jacoby), must protect her lifestyle, lest she be forced to live like most children, under the thumb of adults and expected to act like a child.
This film really surprised me. Although it was very controversial when it was released, it's all but forgotten now. I came across it awhile back when looking through TCM's schedule and was intrigued by the plot description. It's a beautiful movie and the acting is amazing. Although it is classified as horror, no violence is shown. I loved the inclusion of Chopin's haunting piano concertos, but I could have done without the weird 70s porn-sounding score.
Because this film is mostly dialogue, the actors' performances are the lynch pin of the movie. Some people are just born to be actors, and Foster is definitely one of them. She was thirteen when this film was made and she is breathtaking. Her steely resolve only waivers when Mario is in trouble and Foster makes it exceedingly easy to believe that this young girl could live alone. Sheen is also good - and very creepy - and he is able to be menacing just by touching Rynn's hair or commenting on her beauty. Jacoby gives an endearing performance as Mario. He's very funny, and Jacoby and Foster have excellent chemistry.
Fright Rating: 1 gasp out of a possible 5
I highly recommend this film, especially for classic movie lovers. There is no violence and very little blood, but there are some sexual themes, so this is not a film for children.
The Thing (1982) Rated R (for violence and language)
Directed by John Carpenter
Starring: Kurt Russell Wilford Brimley Richard Masur Charles Hallahan
John Carpenter's The Thing is loosely based on The Thing From Another World, a 1951 film directed by Howard Hawks, which was inspired by a short story called "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr. Carpenter followed the short story's plot more closely than his predecessor, updating it for the 1980s. The movie's box office showing was poor, but it has developed a cult following over the years and is a staple in most sci-fi and horror flick collections.
A research station in Antarctica is disrupted when a group of Norwegians attempt to kill a dog, shooting at it from a helicopter. The helicopter crashes and the research station's crew adopts the dog, adding it to the existing kennel of dogs. Things continue as normal until the crew finds the adopted stray dog has turned into an amorphous monster in the process of absorbing the rest of the dogs. They incinerate the Dog-Thing and the subsequent autopsy reveals that the dog was actually an alien being able to replicate its host. Slowly members of the crew are turned into things, and the remaining human crew is unsure who among them has been changed. This causes them to turn on each other, each man fighting for his own survival in an isolated, wintry world.
This film and Invasion of the Body Snatchers have many similarities. Of course, they are both alien flicks, but most importantly, they are about alien lifeforms that duplicate their human hosts. Because of this, both films deal with similar themes. The Thing's main themes are isolation and paranoia. Being stationed in Antarctica, the crew manning the research station were stuck, both in that location and with each other. Because the alien entity can replicate any life form, it is impossible to tell who is a "thing" and who isn't. This creates a paranoia among the still-human members of the crew, which is amplified by the isolation from other people and the claustrophobia created by the confines of the station.
Rob Bottin, the SFX artist for the film, produced amazing creature effects (before CGI!) for this flick. (The best one: The Norris-Thing) I'm not usually a gore fan, but the quality of these effects drew me in. I was lucky enough to find a documentary on special effects, Starz's Fantastic Flesh, that explained how many of the effects were done, and it made me want to watch the movie all over again. What was great about the creatures in this movie was that each individual piece and body part could develop into its own monster. It keeps you jumping, because if the whole creature isn't destroyed, even a leftover finger could grow legs and attack.
The movie has a great ensemble cast. Russell is an amazing action star, as always, and I loved seeing character actors like Wilford Brimley (Diabetes!) and Richard Masur. The sets are excellent and the music is so suspense building. This is one of my favorite films of all time and is a must-watch for sci-fi fans.
Fright Rating: 4 gasps out of a possible 5
There is lots of gore and gross-out scenes, but it is an amazingly done film. It may not be for the squeamish, but if you love sci-fi, put it on your Netflix queue immediately!
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Rated PG (for mildly disturbing images)
Directed by Phillip Kaufman
Starring:
Donald Sutherland
Brooke Adams
Jeff Goldblum
Veronica Cartwright
Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a remake of a 1956 film of the same name, which was based on Jack Finney's novel, The Body Snatchers. The film has been remade twice since the release of this version, once in 1993 as Body Snatchers starring Meg Tilly, and again in 2007 as The Invasion with Nicole Kidman. Kaufman's version is the most highly regarded and received several awards and nominations from the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Films.
1970s San Francisco is in the midst of the "Me Generation". Pop psychology is at it's peak and the hippie sensibilities are waning as more and more adults get absorbed into the corporate world. Matthew Bennell (Donald Sutherland), is a government worker with the Department of Health. He and his friend and colleague, Elizabeth Driscoll (Brooke Adams) begin noticing changes in people around them. Along with their friends, Jack and Nancy Bellicec, they discover that plant pods are creating alien duplicates of San Francsicans while they sleep, rendering them flat and emotionless, despite retaining the individual's memories and knowledge. The "pod people" are able to differentiate between other pods and those that are still human - shrieking in a shrill, inhuman way to alert other pods that they have found a human in their midst. Matthew, Elizabeth, Jack, and Nancy must run for their lives - and their humanity - to avoid being turned into pods themselves.
Modern alien flicks aren't usually my thing, but this one cuts to the core of one of my deepest fears: that the people you know and love best could look and sound exactly the same, but turn into a stranger over night. The beauty of this film is that beyond the opening scene, you don't think about it being an alien movie. It stands more as an allegory for how mainstream society tries absorb individuals and strip them of their unique qualities.
This movie starts out relatively normal. There's a few funny scenes (particularly Matthew's tour of the health code violating French restaurant), but as the pods take over, the film gets progressively darker, both in tone and color. There is less light and more shadowed areas. The pod people do little more than walk together in large groups, but Kaufman and cinematographer Michael Chapman manage to make them panic-inducing. The worst part of the film is that you can't tell who's a pod person . . . unless they emit that shrill scream, of course. Even from the beginning, you get hints along the way of something unusual going on. (One example: As Elizabeth heads to work after her boyfriend's, Geoffrey, behavior seems odd, several people run past her down the street.) It's great foreshadowing without being too obvious.
The music and sound effects are among the most terrifying aspects of the film. Danny Zeitlin's score makes even the opening shots of rain hitting various plants ominous and the ear-piercing screaming of the pod people is chilling, especially in the pivotal end scene. Zeitlin's score is all the more amazing when you consider that this is his only film score; he worked primarily as a psychologist and played jazz piano in his spare time.
Sutherland is particularly good in this film. As a government employee, his character tries to go through all the regular avenues of getting information and help; he is so straitlaced and so much of a rule follower that he has to be told that the police and the government might already be pods. The fact that he cannot rely on his own instincts is completely alien to Matthew, and Sutherland plays this very well. Adams's character works well because she seems like a level-headed, scientific-minded woman. When she becomes paranoid about her boyfriend's changed personality, the audience is able to accept that her fears are valid, even though she is convinced that Geoffrey is no longer Geoffrey. It is important to establish the two most grounded characters as the first who suspect the pods, rather than the more flighty, new-age Bellicecs. Cartwright is excellent as Nancy, the hippie space cadet. Goldblum is . . . well, he's Jeff Goldblum. He was 26 when this film was made, but his mannerisms and speaking style were still exactly the same. It works for this film, as his character is an eccentric failed poet.
Fright Rating: 3 gasps out of a possible 5
There is virtually no gore in this film. The fear generated by this film is almost completely psychological, save the few scenes with the extremely weird-looking pod duplicates. This is an awesome film, and I highly recommend it, even for those who are not usually sci-fi fans.
28 Days Later (2002) Rated R (for violence and language)
Directed by Danny Boyle
Starring: Cillian Murphy Naomie Harris Brendan Gleeson Christopher Eccleston
Animal rights activists in Britain release a chimpanzee infected with "Rage", an Ebola-like virus, and are immediately infected themselves. 28 days later, a bicycle courier, Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in a deserted London hospital to find England has been decimated by the rouge virus. After being chased by infected citizens, he finds a small band of survivors. Together they must escape the city and the hordes of infected chasing them along the way.
Drawing heavily from Richard Matheson's I Am Legend and George Romero's groundbreaking film Night of the Living Dead, Boyle and writer Alex Garland created a genre-changing modern zombie flick. Boyle's feeling was that every generation gets the type of zombie they deserve. Brain-eating radioactive zombies were created in a generation terrified of nuclear attack. With recent fears about the spreading of disease, Boyle and Garland based their zombies on a viral apocalypse.
The most amazing scenes in the film are those of deserted London streets. One of the busiest, most congested cities in the world, filming deserted areas was no easy task. Boyle and his team managed to film for an hour at a time, setting up a ravaged scene and and quickly taking it down again before and after each sequence. Garland and Boyle thoroughly researched the aftermath of unrest in areas like Sierra Leone and Rwanda, replicating pictures they had seen in some of the film's scenes (most notably, the bodies piled in the church).
The main reason zombies are scary is that there are so many of them. This movie doubles that fear. Not only are there thousands, the infected in 28 Days Later are ridiculously quick and the virus transmits from an infected person to a healthy person in a matter of seconds. Even a drop of infected blood can transmit the virus.
The film was shot on digital video, which gives it a realistic, raw quality - almost like a documentary. Boyle used the slow motion feature on Canon XL1 DV camera to film the infected, which produces a "jumpy" quality, making the scenes appear as though they were trimmed and edited together. He also hired athletic extras to play the infected, believing that they would be able to move their bodies in ways regular people wouldn't. All of these elements work together to create frenzied post-apocalyptic world where survival is the only goal.
The cast in this film is excellent, but they are outshone by the infected zombies, who are some of the most terrifying movie monsters of this century, made worse by the fact that a world wide epidemic is - if not probable - at the very least realistic.
Fright Rating: 4 gasps out of a possible five
This film is scary, fast-paced, and bloody. Fans of zombie flicks will love it, but I highly recommend it for all adult filmgoers.
Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) Rated R (for language, violence, and disturbing images)
Directed John Boorman
Starring: Linda Blair Richard Burton Louise Fletcher Kitty Winn
You know what? I'm not even going to bother describing this movie. It's terrible. It may be one of the worst films ever made and I'm pretty sure nothing you have ever done deserves the punishment of seeing this film. Just don't.
Even though I don't want to waste my time writing about this film, I will provide the trailer for your joy and amusement.
The Exorcist III (1990) Rated R (for violence, language, and disturbing images)
Directed by William Peter Blatty
Starring: George C. Scott Brad Dourif Jason Miller Ed Flanders
The Exorcist III is based on Blatty's novel, Legion. Blatty initially wanted to make Legion as The Exorcist's first sequel, but after disagreements arose over pivotal plot points, he abandoned the project, turning it into a novel several years later. After the dismal failure of Exorcist II, Morgan Creek Productions agreed to allow Blatty to direct the film, but insisted it be called Exorcist III to draw in more viewers.
Exorcist III focuses on Lt. William Kinderman (George C. Scott) as he investigates a series of murders that mirror crimes committed fifteen years before by the Gemini serial killer (Brad Dourif). Kinderman thinks it's a copycat at first, since the Gemini killer was executed, but several items of evidence don't add up. A amnesiac psychiatric patient may be the key to the mystery, as well as the answer to what happened to Father Damian Karras (Jason Miller) in 1973.
The rich color and surrealistic imagery in this flick reminded me of an Argento film. (Look for the weird cameos - including Fabio, Patrick Ewing, and Samuel L. Jackson - in Kinderman's dream sequence.) Like an Argento flick, there are eccentric characters, inventive deaths, and supernatural elements.
Scott is one of my favorite actors; he's like your favorite cantankerous grandpa. The more he yells, the happier I get. (Watch the "carp scene", you'll be a Scott fan in no time.) Ed Flanders is a hilarious and caustic Father Dyer. The always excellent Dourif really shines in this movie and it's one of his few performances where he isn't hidden behind makeup.
I highly recommend putting this on your Netflix queue, especially if you are a fan of the original. You can also buy it very cheaply on Amazon. While not as widely regarded as the original film, Exorcist III is a solid, very creepy flick.
Fright Rating: 3 gasps out of a possible five
There are several fairly violent scenes, but nothing as shocking as the original.
Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist Rated R (for violence, language, and disturbing images)
Directed by Paul Schrader
Starring: Stellan Skarsgard Gabriel Mann Clara Bellar Ralph Brown
Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist was given up as a lost cause. After the film was nearly completed, Morgan Creek Productions scrapped the project, fired Schrader and replaced him with Renny Harlin, who made a completely different film - one Morgan Creek believed would be more commercially successful. Once Harlin's version failed at the box office, Schrader was given $35,000 to complete the film and it was given a small theatrical release.
Dominion centers on Father Lankaster Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard) after he experiences a crisis of faith, following WWII. During the war, he is forced by a Nazi soldier to choose people of his parish to be executed in retribution for the murder of another Nazi guard. He takes a sabbatical and goes on several archaeological digs, the most recent on a British military post in East Africa. He is joined there by Father William Francis (Gabriel Mann), a young Jesuit priest who knows little about the world. Father Francis has been sent by the Vatican to assess Merrin's devotion to the church. Several mysterious occurrences happen after a young disabled boy is placed under the post's hospital care. The discovery of a Catholic church built over a pagan temple complicates matters. Merrin's faith will be tested once more when he must deal with his own demons . . . as well as literal ones.
Undoubtedly, this is not what audiences would have expected from an Exorcist sequel. It is less an outright horror film than a psychological thriller with a few minor supernatural elements. This movie takes a far more "realistic" approach to the nature of evil than Harlin's version.
Schrader's film is far more artistic and stylized than Harlin's version. Merrin's flashbacks to WWII are differentiated from the setting of the film by a subtle change in color palette. The post war scenes are gradients of brown, but the browns are rich and saturated. The war scenes have more gray, and appear washed out. Schrader uses inter cut scenes of a tribal birth presided over by a medicine man and doctors operating on a boy's infected leg, showing the divide between the old and new worlds. He mirrors the opening sequence of the Nazi soldier's random shooting of an innocent girl with the Sarge ant's similar action after his men are found brutally slain.
Skarsgard cannot match Von Sydow's original performance as Father Merrin, but he does his best. He conveys Merrin's tortured soul, but not his wise kindness. Mann is very good as the naive and sheltered Jesuit priest shocked by what he experiences in the desert.
Dominion isn't very good, but it is a better film than Exorcist: The Beginning. The movie is clearly unfinished (the special effects are primitive at best), but it would have been interesting to see how it would have turned out had Morgan Creek had a bit more faith in Schrader's vision.
Fright Rating: 1 1/2 gasps out of a possible five
*Editor's Note: Although this trailer says "Exorcist: The Beginning", it is Dominion's prequel. This trailer was created before Schrader was replaced and the movie was remade.
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004) Rated R (for violence, language, and disturbing images)
Directed by Renny Harlin
Starring: Stellan Skarsgard Izabella Scorupco James D'Arcy Ralph Brown
This is the second version of the Exorcist prequel. Merrin's back story is the same, but the rest of the story was rewritten to create a more traditional horror film.
Father Merrin (again played by Skarsgard) has given up the priesthood to become an archaeologist. He is paid to supervise the dig of an ancient Christian church and finds the project in turmoil. The tribal people believe that the church is evil, but the British are determined to uncover it. A number of strange events precede the fight of Merrin's life, one that will restore his faith, but earn him a terrible demonic enemy.
This flick is not very scary and not very good. It relies on conventional "gotcha scares" and gross out scenes - stuff that, when overused, makes for a very mediocre horror movie. It opens with the aftermath of a gruesome medieval battle, complete with several hundred soldiers crucified upside down. Morgan Creek gave Harlin a bigger budget because they wanted a more "Hollywood" film. This flick is slicker than the first version, with more special effects and a lot more gore. Even so, the effects are pretty bad and the exorcism scene is a joke. The film spirals into an almost-spoof of the original 1973 film. Merrin's return of faith is far less believable than that portrayed in Dominion and the plot does not follow the canon of the original film. (Merrin is said to have exorcised a young African boy.)
The Merrin in this film is much more jaded and seems far more corrupt. While in Schrader's version, he is tormented by his guilt and the horror he saw during the war, Harlin's portrayal of the priest is that he has turned his back on God because of what he has experienced. Brown also reprises his role as the Sergeant Major, but his performance is more sinister than the merely arrogant bigot he plays in Dominion. The recasts are equally disastrous. D'Arcy's Father Francis is far less earnest and more self-righteous than Gabriel Mann's portrayal in Dominion and Scorupco is colder and far less likeable than her predecessor, Clara Bellar, who played the doctor role in the first film. The one bright spot is Alan Ford, who plays crass project manager, Jefferies, an entirely new character. Ford is at his best when he plays jovial assholes (He also played Bricktop in Guy Ritchie's Snatch), which means he is perfect for this role.
Fright Rating: 1 gasp out of a possible five
This film is gorier than Dominion, but not scarier. It's better to skip both films, unless you are curious to see how two completely different movies can be made of the same story.
