AreYou Scared 2...2009...95(ish) minutes...R...starring Tristan Wright, Chad Guerrero, Kathy Gardiner, Andrea Monier and Tony Todd...written and directed by Russell Appling and John Lands
Two guys and their female companions are a web-cache tracking team, where they track down hidden stockpiles of stuff others have hid and posted on the web. They log their exploits on the Internet as Team DNA and are on their way to being the world record holders of this variant of hide-and-seek. Needless to say, their last hunt turns into a BIT more than they bargained for.
How do I describe this movie? When I saw the title, and wondered to myself that the original title would inspire a sequel, my initial answer was "Yes.I'm scared. Scared anyone would make a franchise out of such manure". But in my wildest dreams, I could never have imagined the depths of inadequacy that this straight-to-video release would take me to.
I have found the Eleusinian Mysteries of the bad horror movie, and allow me to explain this statement. I can tell you (and I do...yeah, verily, I surely do) that this movie is bad. I can say that this is positively one of the worst pieces of crap I have wasted an hour and a half of my life on. But saying these things cannot convey to you the sheer experience of this tripe...only by watching it (and please, please don't) can you truly KNOW how bad the genre can sink to. My only question is: Why, Tony Todd, why? Did you really need the small amount of money that these people could get you -that- badly?
If you're curious, this story has nothing to do with the original. They left the original open for more, but that wouldn't have been bad enough. I'm not even sure I can point to any one thing that makes this thing so terrible; it's the perfect storm of terrible vectors that create a tsunami of tragic filmmaking. I could make better. I think I did when I was 8 or so making short movies with my action figures.
Now let me explain my rating. I give it 1/2 of a briefcase out of 5...only because deep in my soul I have the terrible knowledge that if I give this thing the zero that it truly deserves, I will somehow stumble onto something worse. I'm not sure that's possible, but by acknowledging the slimmest of possibilities, I hope to stave off a fate worse than having a 100 Cthulhu Mythos score. If you'll excuse me, I need to gargle with some Lovecraft.
Blech, uck, and barf!
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
My Bloody Valentine
My Bloody Valentine...1981...90 minutes...rated R...starring Paul Kelman, Lori Hallier, Neil Affleck, and Keith Knight...written by Stephen A. Miller and John Beaird...directed by George Mihalka
Valentine Bluffs, up in Nova Scotia, has a bit of a history. Twenty years ago, there was a Valentine's Day party going on while 7 men were still down in the mines that are the town industry. 2 of them were supervisors, both eager to get to the party. Forgetting to check the methane levels, the supervisors left...and an explosion sealed the other men in. Only one survived: Harry Warden. Harry was never quite the same again, and went on a murder spree the next year, serving up the hearts of the two supervisors and vowing to kill again if anyone ever celebrated Valentine's Day again. Of course, there couldn't be any danger in holding a party 20 years after that horrible day, could there?
Here's a hacker film from the golden age of slashers, and while it has all the horrible cliches and pitfalls of a film made in this period, there are some moments of gold both in sheer grisliness and in humor that make this one worth a rewatching. That's not me saying that the movie is -good-, per se... but it's enjoyable if you know what you're getting into. Admittedly, there's something fetishy-freaky about a killer who runs around in a gas mask, and the opening murder sequence (beautiful girl about to make time with a guy who doesn't want to take his mask off deep in the mines) sets the tone of the hour and half to follow.
Without spoiling the movie too much more for the five people who may have missed this the first time around, the movie's lead is one of the few people outside of Fred from the Scooby-Doo cartoons who is working the whole scarf/ascot/whattheheckever look. There's a few false scares, a few wonderful monologues by crazy town elders, a system of mental health care that is positively criminal in its record-keeping, and lots of gore that was shocking in its day but nothing that would make a modern "Saw" audience flinch...too much.Let's not forget a minecar fight sequence that has to be seen to be believed. *dry sarcasm* With luck, I'll get to see the 2009 version and compare the differences.
Personally, the threat of a serial killer spree would be enough for me to completely cancel Valentine's Day...but then I was never a big fan. 2.5 pickaxes out of 5.
Valentine Bluffs, up in Nova Scotia, has a bit of a history. Twenty years ago, there was a Valentine's Day party going on while 7 men were still down in the mines that are the town industry. 2 of them were supervisors, both eager to get to the party. Forgetting to check the methane levels, the supervisors left...and an explosion sealed the other men in. Only one survived: Harry Warden. Harry was never quite the same again, and went on a murder spree the next year, serving up the hearts of the two supervisors and vowing to kill again if anyone ever celebrated Valentine's Day again. Of course, there couldn't be any danger in holding a party 20 years after that horrible day, could there?
Here's a hacker film from the golden age of slashers, and while it has all the horrible cliches and pitfalls of a film made in this period, there are some moments of gold both in sheer grisliness and in humor that make this one worth a rewatching. That's not me saying that the movie is -good-, per se... but it's enjoyable if you know what you're getting into. Admittedly, there's something fetishy-freaky about a killer who runs around in a gas mask, and the opening murder sequence (beautiful girl about to make time with a guy who doesn't want to take his mask off deep in the mines) sets the tone of the hour and half to follow.
Without spoiling the movie too much more for the five people who may have missed this the first time around, the movie's lead is one of the few people outside of Fred from the Scooby-Doo cartoons who is working the whole scarf/ascot/whattheheckever look. There's a few false scares, a few wonderful monologues by crazy town elders, a system of mental health care that is positively criminal in its record-keeping, and lots of gore that was shocking in its day but nothing that would make a modern "Saw" audience flinch...too much.Let's not forget a minecar fight sequence that has to be seen to be believed. *dry sarcasm* With luck, I'll get to see the 2009 version and compare the differences.
Personally, the threat of a serial killer spree would be enough for me to completely cancel Valentine's Day...but then I was never a big fan. 2.5 pickaxes out of 5.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Wolfman (2010)
The Wolfman...2010...103 minutes...rated R...starring Benicio Del Toro, Emily Blunt, Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving...written by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self...directed by Joe Johnston
Lawrence Talbot, famous stage actor, returns to his ancestral home of Talbot Hall upon hearing the tragic news of his brother's demise. At the urging of his brother's widow, he hunts for the beast or madman that killed his sibling, only to be injured by the beast personally. The wounding passes on the curse of the Wolfman, and now Lawrence Talbot finds the beast within himself as well as out in the wilds of Blackmoor and the city streets of London.
I'll admit that I was excited when I'd heard that they had redone this movie...every once in a while I do think that the classics need to be retold, with hopefully a bit of new life breathed into the story. when I saw the cast and crew invoilved with this release, I was even more hopeful. Now that I've seen it, I understand why the film didn't have as long of a run as I would have wanted for it to.
Let's talk about the pros first. I will say that cinematically, this is a beautiful movie. As a period piece, it's got a wonderful look to it, and of course, the CGI effects on the transformation are all that could be asked for. There's a scene where Lawrence is hunting the creature in the misty moors and finds himself inside a ring of standing stones that I found simply gorgeous. Another plus is indeed the cast that got brought into the movie; though this cast marks where the film starts taking its fatal flaw.
For a movie with such people like Del Toro and Hopkins, I just expected to -care- more about Lawrence Talbot, and the movie itself. Instead I found myself bored and distracted at times. Part of it is in the dialogue; I think that Hopkins (as the elder Talbot) gets most of the best written lines in the script. Part of it is that some of thee writing which could have been interesting never gets followed through. Hugo weaving's character is a Scotland Yard inspector who worked on the Ripper case; so much more could have been done with that, but after saying it, that thread just gets left.
Most of it, though, rests on Del Toro. Unlike the Larry Talbot of before, the only emotion I got out of this "renowned thespian" (character and actor) is exhaustion. He's as wooden and dry as I've ever seen an actor, and while the character of Talbot is certainly one that is haunted, especially when it comes to his family, where is the passion that made this man such a known performer? Why should we care about this guy, in short? It's a question the movie fails to answer, and sadly not the only one either. The main action in the film comes from the very violent werewolf attacks, which are made all the more striking due to the lack of energy from Talbot as a man, but the savagery really doesn't make you feel any more concerned for the guy's fate either.
I would recommend this movie as either a discount movie or as a cable selection, but I can't endorse any serious money being spent on this one. It's nice to look at, but doesn't really leave you with anything, except maybe a senseof disappointment as it did me. I give it 2.5 icy asylum dips out of 5.
Lawrence Talbot, famous stage actor, returns to his ancestral home of Talbot Hall upon hearing the tragic news of his brother's demise. At the urging of his brother's widow, he hunts for the beast or madman that killed his sibling, only to be injured by the beast personally. The wounding passes on the curse of the Wolfman, and now Lawrence Talbot finds the beast within himself as well as out in the wilds of Blackmoor and the city streets of London.
I'll admit that I was excited when I'd heard that they had redone this movie...every once in a while I do think that the classics need to be retold, with hopefully a bit of new life breathed into the story. when I saw the cast and crew invoilved with this release, I was even more hopeful. Now that I've seen it, I understand why the film didn't have as long of a run as I would have wanted for it to.
Let's talk about the pros first. I will say that cinematically, this is a beautiful movie. As a period piece, it's got a wonderful look to it, and of course, the CGI effects on the transformation are all that could be asked for. There's a scene where Lawrence is hunting the creature in the misty moors and finds himself inside a ring of standing stones that I found simply gorgeous. Another plus is indeed the cast that got brought into the movie; though this cast marks where the film starts taking its fatal flaw.
For a movie with such people like Del Toro and Hopkins, I just expected to -care- more about Lawrence Talbot, and the movie itself. Instead I found myself bored and distracted at times. Part of it is in the dialogue; I think that Hopkins (as the elder Talbot) gets most of the best written lines in the script. Part of it is that some of thee writing which could have been interesting never gets followed through. Hugo weaving's character is a Scotland Yard inspector who worked on the Ripper case; so much more could have been done with that, but after saying it, that thread just gets left.
Most of it, though, rests on Del Toro. Unlike the Larry Talbot of before, the only emotion I got out of this "renowned thespian" (character and actor) is exhaustion. He's as wooden and dry as I've ever seen an actor, and while the character of Talbot is certainly one that is haunted, especially when it comes to his family, where is the passion that made this man such a known performer? Why should we care about this guy, in short? It's a question the movie fails to answer, and sadly not the only one either. The main action in the film comes from the very violent werewolf attacks, which are made all the more striking due to the lack of energy from Talbot as a man, but the savagery really doesn't make you feel any more concerned for the guy's fate either.
I would recommend this movie as either a discount movie or as a cable selection, but I can't endorse any serious money being spent on this one. It's nice to look at, but doesn't really leave you with anything, except maybe a senseof disappointment as it did me. I give it 2.5 icy asylum dips out of 5.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Are You Scared?
Are You Scared?....2006...79 minutes...rated R...starring Alethea Kutscher, Erin Consalvi, Brad Ashten, and Carlee Avers...written and directed by Andy Hurst.
Six young adults wake up in an abandoned factory/warehouse and find themselves contestants in a reality show entitled "Are You Scared?" The show is far too real, and apparently the idea of privacy wavers, liability forms, and safety for the contestants has gone right out the window. These things apparently don't matter when the man behind the game is a twisted psychopath...go figure.
This was a straight-to-video release that I found on FearNet, and the obvious note here is that this flick is obviously a low-rent Saw. Two police detectives are running around trying to track down the crazy man...and so far I've seen no revelation as to why the pyscho is indeed a psycho.(I'm writing as I watch.) The contestants are supposed to be facing their deepest fears, but unlike the Saw franchise I don't think there's any hope of redemption or even survival for the poor saps who got mysteriously abducted. Also, in Saw, the killer was indeed fiendishly clever...I don't think this guy quite measures up.
On a side note, I must be getting older: I'm watching one particular scene that isn't scaring me as much as making me go "ewwwww" and wondering if it was really necessary. I never used to worry about excess gore in my scary movies. Of course, applying the word "scary" to this piece of schlock would be highly inappropriate. Who would have thought I would have considered things like writing quality, tone, etc?
Second side note: as much as I say that a movie (like this one) doesn't even rate being called tripe, I would so act in one of these movies. I wouldn't even need pay, although I'd prefer some sort of recompense. Matching my currrent pay would do for me...and would surely be below scale.
Ah, the twist has arrived. *yawn* Am I scared? Not even vaguely.
I give this movie 1 drill-on-a-track out of 5.
Six young adults wake up in an abandoned factory/warehouse and find themselves contestants in a reality show entitled "Are You Scared?" The show is far too real, and apparently the idea of privacy wavers, liability forms, and safety for the contestants has gone right out the window. These things apparently don't matter when the man behind the game is a twisted psychopath...go figure.
This was a straight-to-video release that I found on FearNet, and the obvious note here is that this flick is obviously a low-rent Saw. Two police detectives are running around trying to track down the crazy man...and so far I've seen no revelation as to why the pyscho is indeed a psycho.(I'm writing as I watch.) The contestants are supposed to be facing their deepest fears, but unlike the Saw franchise I don't think there's any hope of redemption or even survival for the poor saps who got mysteriously abducted. Also, in Saw, the killer was indeed fiendishly clever...I don't think this guy quite measures up.
On a side note, I must be getting older: I'm watching one particular scene that isn't scaring me as much as making me go "ewwwww" and wondering if it was really necessary. I never used to worry about excess gore in my scary movies. Of course, applying the word "scary" to this piece of schlock would be highly inappropriate. Who would have thought I would have considered things like writing quality, tone, etc?
Second side note: as much as I say that a movie (like this one) doesn't even rate being called tripe, I would so act in one of these movies. I wouldn't even need pay, although I'd prefer some sort of recompense. Matching my currrent pay would do for me...and would surely be below scale.
Ah, the twist has arrived. *yawn* Am I scared? Not even vaguely.
I give this movie 1 drill-on-a-track out of 5.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
NAMR: A Long, Long Way To Go
19 reviews down, 481 to go. This is the number of reviews I need to write within the space of 260ish days, if I hope to make my goal. It's not impossible, though I'm well versed in knowing that the odds are long indeed. But hey, nothing good was ever easy.
I have not begun to write! Or fight...or whatever the quote is. ;-)
Okay, what's on Fearnet?
I have not begun to write! Or fight...or whatever the quote is. ;-)
Okay, what's on Fearnet?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Exorcist III
Exorcist III...1990...110 minutes...R...starring George C. Scott, Jason Miller, Brad Dourif, and Ed Flanders...written for the screen and directed by William Peter Blatty
"I dream of a rose...and of falling down a long flight of stairs...."
Based off of Blatty's own book _Legion_, Exorcist III follows Detective Kinderman as he explores a series of gruesome murders that have haunting echoes from his past. The signature on the killings matches that of a serial killer who died 15 years ago, and as Kinderman follows the leads on the case, he uncovers a dark and almost impossible mystery. The murder is tied into another incident from the past that he was privy to as well, a matter of a certain exorcism....
Since Blatty was heavily involved in this movie, I consider this movie the true sequel to the Exorcist as opposed to Exorcist II: The Heretic...apologies to Linda Blair and Richard Burton, who did their best there. (I may get to that movie at some point, we'll see.) The movie is a fairly faithful adaptation of Blatty's book, although the ending does differ. I read from imdb.com that this incongruity was based on the studios wanting an exorcism in their Exorcist movie. (which does kinda follow, but go figure.) In fact, what detracts from the overall creepiness of the movie is that there are places where you can tell that it was deliberately given some moments to make it more of a big movie.
The first, and most obvious, of these decisions was the involvement of Jason Miller. Not that I disagree in general with having him in the movie, but the Gemini Killer personality that inhabits Karras's body was originally just supposed to be played by Brad Dourif...instead the movie hops bewteen Miller and Dourif in a way that's confusing...especially since the Gemini is predominant in most of the scenes. However, since Jason Miller was in the first Exorcst, I expect that his involvement was partially there to help tie the two movies together.
Second, there are a LOT of orchestrated "audience jump" moments...people popping up suddenly in hopes to startle the viewers. It's awell-known gimmick, and while it's to be expected I found it to be getting a bit old. Mind you, there's one orchestrated moment involving a nurse moving through a hospital hallway which is blocked and executed wonderfully and still gets me even when I know when the scare is coming. Such moments are few, though...I prefer moments they have where a statue in a church looks one way under the normal light but gets hideously warped when the light goes out.
The writing is still a strength in the movie, especially in some of the dialogue, but some things didn't translate well from the first movie. Kinderman talks about how close he was to Father Karras, but in the first movie the two characters share little screen time together and the relationship seems like a stretch. The recut version of The Exorcist helps explain the Kinderman/Dyer relationship much better, though. What I do find interesting is that one of my favorite lines from the novel _The Exorcist_ got transposed into this movie: A possessed Karras tells Father Sunshine, "This time you're going to lose."... something that the demon was supposed to say to Father Merrin in the original.
Overall, the movie isn't nearly as effective as the original but it's a decent movie by itself...it certainly shines in comparison to other of the movies in the Exorcist franchise. Plus, there's a lovely cameo of Samuel L. Jackson early in his career...though his voice must have been dubbed over. As long as you're not expecting "The Exorcist" itself, I think you'll find this movie enjoyable.
I give it 3 autopsy shears out of 5.
"I dream of a rose...and of falling down a long flight of stairs...."
Based off of Blatty's own book _Legion_, Exorcist III follows Detective Kinderman as he explores a series of gruesome murders that have haunting echoes from his past. The signature on the killings matches that of a serial killer who died 15 years ago, and as Kinderman follows the leads on the case, he uncovers a dark and almost impossible mystery. The murder is tied into another incident from the past that he was privy to as well, a matter of a certain exorcism....
Since Blatty was heavily involved in this movie, I consider this movie the true sequel to the Exorcist as opposed to Exorcist II: The Heretic...apologies to Linda Blair and Richard Burton, who did their best there. (I may get to that movie at some point, we'll see.) The movie is a fairly faithful adaptation of Blatty's book, although the ending does differ. I read from imdb.com that this incongruity was based on the studios wanting an exorcism in their Exorcist movie. (which does kinda follow, but go figure.) In fact, what detracts from the overall creepiness of the movie is that there are places where you can tell that it was deliberately given some moments to make it more of a big movie.
The first, and most obvious, of these decisions was the involvement of Jason Miller. Not that I disagree in general with having him in the movie, but the Gemini Killer personality that inhabits Karras's body was originally just supposed to be played by Brad Dourif...instead the movie hops bewteen Miller and Dourif in a way that's confusing...especially since the Gemini is predominant in most of the scenes. However, since Jason Miller was in the first Exorcst, I expect that his involvement was partially there to help tie the two movies together.
Second, there are a LOT of orchestrated "audience jump" moments...people popping up suddenly in hopes to startle the viewers. It's awell-known gimmick, and while it's to be expected I found it to be getting a bit old. Mind you, there's one orchestrated moment involving a nurse moving through a hospital hallway which is blocked and executed wonderfully and still gets me even when I know when the scare is coming. Such moments are few, though...I prefer moments they have where a statue in a church looks one way under the normal light but gets hideously warped when the light goes out.
The writing is still a strength in the movie, especially in some of the dialogue, but some things didn't translate well from the first movie. Kinderman talks about how close he was to Father Karras, but in the first movie the two characters share little screen time together and the relationship seems like a stretch. The recut version of The Exorcist helps explain the Kinderman/Dyer relationship much better, though. What I do find interesting is that one of my favorite lines from the novel _The Exorcist_ got transposed into this movie: A possessed Karras tells Father Sunshine, "This time you're going to lose."... something that the demon was supposed to say to Father Merrin in the original.
Overall, the movie isn't nearly as effective as the original but it's a decent movie by itself...it certainly shines in comparison to other of the movies in the Exorcist franchise. Plus, there's a lovely cameo of Samuel L. Jackson early in his career...though his voice must have been dubbed over. As long as you're not expecting "The Exorcist" itself, I think you'll find this movie enjoyable.
I give it 3 autopsy shears out of 5.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Exorcist (The Version You've Never Seen)
The Exorcist (recut)...1973 original, 2000 version release...132 minutes...R...starring Ellen Burstyn, Max Von Sydow, Jason Miller, Lee J. Cobb and Linda Blair...written by William Peter Blatty...directed by William Friedkin
I think most people know this charming little story, which demonstrates why no one should ever play with a ouija board EVER. An actress gets to witness the transformation of her young daughter from average kid to demonically possessed creature, while a priest struggling with his faith is thrust into a spiritual battle that he has a hard time believing is even possible, and a second priest is brought back to a conflict with an old enemy that nearly killed him some 12 years ago. (*whew*) The movie is based on a best-selling novel written by William Peter Blatty, and was recut with additional footage and some digital manipulation to help tie pieces of the story together.
Let me say this statement up front: I consider this film to be a classic and a benchmark in terms of horror films. I'm not the only one, of course. The film made a box-office sensation when it was released, and is still listed on the top of various lists for best horror movies to this day. So what makes it work? Like any great movie, it's a combination of various factors.
One, the performances given by the cast are rock-solid. Even watching it now, I still find myself understanding and believing the struggles that Father Karras is going through. I buy that Regan is a normal, if possibly spoiled kid before things inevitably spiral downward. It's a clear switch between normal Regan and the thing possessing her. While the whole history of Father Merrin's previous exorcism is lightly touched on, the fear he has when he finds the ancient amulet in the Iraq dig and has his premonition is clearly visible.
Two, the writing and dialogue is sharp and mostly tight in terms of story. The original version's Iraq segment is the exception to this statement; the linkage between the Pazuzu statue and the events in Washington wasn't clear...and even though some digital imagery helps in the recut, there's a case to be made that it's still not exactly crystalline why these events are linked. (That said, I am always amused by a line Kinderman says about keeping the windows closed...drafts being a magic carpet for diseases...since Pazuzu is a demon of the Southwest wind in Assyrian/Babylonian mythology) Okay, exception noted...the rest of the story has great dialogue and moves at a steady pace.
Three, minimal soundtrack. It's one of the things that I had noted when I'd first watched the movie; that you weren't flooded over with mood music all through the movie...no buildup like is typical in a lot of horror movies. I'm not sure I can explain why, but the lack of background music makes the whole thing more effective. Again, there's a notable exception: Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", which is now inexorably tied to this movie. Even so, the music occupies only the briefest of moments on the screen.
Most of all, though, I think that what really makes this movie is its depiction of the rational impacted by the irrational...which I think is at the core of all supernatural horror. I'm not sure I've seen a better movie showing what happens when modern, rational, and intelligent people find themselves in a situation that they can't explain, can't understand, and have no real tools to deal with. The medical sequences (which get to me, mostly because I have a nasty fear of hospitals and needles) are the best example of this conflict...Regan goes through all sorts of painful medical tests and her doctors find nothing physically wrong, of course. I think it hits on the basic fear that life will always have unknowable and uncontrollable aspects, no matter how much we learn or try to exert control on the world.
Anyways, watch this movie if you haven't. (and why haven't you?) Like it, don't like it, whatever...but if you're interested at all in the genre and haven't seen this movie, you're missing a foundation block of discussion. If nothing else, see what sacred the bejeezus out of audiences in the early 70s. No time to be anything less than bold, I give this movie 5 ancient statues out of 5.
I think most people know this charming little story, which demonstrates why no one should ever play with a ouija board EVER. An actress gets to witness the transformation of her young daughter from average kid to demonically possessed creature, while a priest struggling with his faith is thrust into a spiritual battle that he has a hard time believing is even possible, and a second priest is brought back to a conflict with an old enemy that nearly killed him some 12 years ago. (*whew*) The movie is based on a best-selling novel written by William Peter Blatty, and was recut with additional footage and some digital manipulation to help tie pieces of the story together.
Let me say this statement up front: I consider this film to be a classic and a benchmark in terms of horror films. I'm not the only one, of course. The film made a box-office sensation when it was released, and is still listed on the top of various lists for best horror movies to this day. So what makes it work? Like any great movie, it's a combination of various factors.
One, the performances given by the cast are rock-solid. Even watching it now, I still find myself understanding and believing the struggles that Father Karras is going through. I buy that Regan is a normal, if possibly spoiled kid before things inevitably spiral downward. It's a clear switch between normal Regan and the thing possessing her. While the whole history of Father Merrin's previous exorcism is lightly touched on, the fear he has when he finds the ancient amulet in the Iraq dig and has his premonition is clearly visible.
Two, the writing and dialogue is sharp and mostly tight in terms of story. The original version's Iraq segment is the exception to this statement; the linkage between the Pazuzu statue and the events in Washington wasn't clear...and even though some digital imagery helps in the recut, there's a case to be made that it's still not exactly crystalline why these events are linked. (That said, I am always amused by a line Kinderman says about keeping the windows closed...drafts being a magic carpet for diseases...since Pazuzu is a demon of the Southwest wind in Assyrian/Babylonian mythology) Okay, exception noted...the rest of the story has great dialogue and moves at a steady pace.
Three, minimal soundtrack. It's one of the things that I had noted when I'd first watched the movie; that you weren't flooded over with mood music all through the movie...no buildup like is typical in a lot of horror movies. I'm not sure I can explain why, but the lack of background music makes the whole thing more effective. Again, there's a notable exception: Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", which is now inexorably tied to this movie. Even so, the music occupies only the briefest of moments on the screen.
Most of all, though, I think that what really makes this movie is its depiction of the rational impacted by the irrational...which I think is at the core of all supernatural horror. I'm not sure I've seen a better movie showing what happens when modern, rational, and intelligent people find themselves in a situation that they can't explain, can't understand, and have no real tools to deal with. The medical sequences (which get to me, mostly because I have a nasty fear of hospitals and needles) are the best example of this conflict...Regan goes through all sorts of painful medical tests and her doctors find nothing physically wrong, of course. I think it hits on the basic fear that life will always have unknowable and uncontrollable aspects, no matter how much we learn or try to exert control on the world.
Anyways, watch this movie if you haven't. (and why haven't you?) Like it, don't like it, whatever...but if you're interested at all in the genre and haven't seen this movie, you're missing a foundation block of discussion. If nothing else, see what sacred the bejeezus out of audiences in the early 70s. No time to be anything less than bold, I give this movie 5 ancient statues out of 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)