Just hoping everyone had a great holiday! I'll get back to business tomorrow...work and life had me take a break for a bit. But I will charge ahead and do the rest of these reviews! Prepare to be...inundated. ;-)
Anyways, be well and safe, people!
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
In The Mouth Of Madness
In The Mouth Of Madness...1995...95 minutes...R...starring Sam Neill, Julie Carmen, Jurgen Prochnow, and David Warner, with an appearance by Charlton Heston...written by Michael De Luca...directed by John Carpenter.
Insurance investigator John Trent has been called in by Arcane Books to locate their prize horror author, Sutter Cane. The writer is a sensation bigger than Stephen King, and his latest book is likely to be worth millions...but Cane has gone missing, and so has the manuscript. The only person to have read it is Cane's agent, who was gunned down in front of Trent to stop the agent's insane axe attack. Accompanied by Cane's editor, Linda Styles, Trent sets off to the town of Hobb's End...a fictional town in Cane's works that Trent believes was set up by Arcane to help publicize this "missing" book. Trent soon learns that the truth is far stranger...and deadlier...than fiction.
Anybody familiar with horror fiction will see the obvious link between Cane and early 20th century writer, H.P. Lovecraft. I am going to offend some Lovecraft purists when I say that Carpenter's film is one of the best...and arguably THE best...Lovecraftian movie out there. No, it doesn't specifically use the Cthulhu mythos that came out of HPL's work; but no other movie I've seen better conveys the idea of supernatural beings trying to invade, distort, and ultimately reshape our world. It's hard to depict something so terrible that it defies description, especially in such a visual medium as film, but by focusing on Trent's journey to truth and insanity the -sense- of what Lovecraft was writing about becomes clear.
That's not to say that the movie is perfect. In the interests of full disclosure, I really enjoy Carpenter's work. That said, some of the creature effects are fairly obvious as effects...and there are several "flash" sequences where a bunch of images are shown in rapid succession. I find them effective at times, but I know people with eyesight issues who find such rapid flashing painful to watch. Carpenter also delights in having a lot of "jump" moments in the movie...which are fun but do add a bit of cheesiness that distracts somewhat from the sense of growing helplessness and alienation that Trent goes through.
I love the talent in this movie. Sam Neill really hits the mark as a man losing control in about every sense imaginable, and Jurgen Prochnow is very convincing as a creepy writer-turned-dark messiah. (His accent works for me in this role, but your mileage may vary.) You might notice a familiar looking young boy on a bicycle when Trent finally gets out of Hobb's End...this was one of Hayden Christiansen's first movie parts.
Like many films of the genre, I think "In The Mouth Of Madness" is one of those movies that either works for you or doesn't. I would also argue that a deciding factor may be how a potential viewer answers the questions: what if reality as we know it is not a fixed, static thing...but rather potentially fluid? What if the rules changed? Is such a thing possible? I give this movie 3.5 black churches out of 5.
Insurance investigator John Trent has been called in by Arcane Books to locate their prize horror author, Sutter Cane. The writer is a sensation bigger than Stephen King, and his latest book is likely to be worth millions...but Cane has gone missing, and so has the manuscript. The only person to have read it is Cane's agent, who was gunned down in front of Trent to stop the agent's insane axe attack. Accompanied by Cane's editor, Linda Styles, Trent sets off to the town of Hobb's End...a fictional town in Cane's works that Trent believes was set up by Arcane to help publicize this "missing" book. Trent soon learns that the truth is far stranger...and deadlier...than fiction.
Anybody familiar with horror fiction will see the obvious link between Cane and early 20th century writer, H.P. Lovecraft. I am going to offend some Lovecraft purists when I say that Carpenter's film is one of the best...and arguably THE best...Lovecraftian movie out there. No, it doesn't specifically use the Cthulhu mythos that came out of HPL's work; but no other movie I've seen better conveys the idea of supernatural beings trying to invade, distort, and ultimately reshape our world. It's hard to depict something so terrible that it defies description, especially in such a visual medium as film, but by focusing on Trent's journey to truth and insanity the -sense- of what Lovecraft was writing about becomes clear.
That's not to say that the movie is perfect. In the interests of full disclosure, I really enjoy Carpenter's work. That said, some of the creature effects are fairly obvious as effects...and there are several "flash" sequences where a bunch of images are shown in rapid succession. I find them effective at times, but I know people with eyesight issues who find such rapid flashing painful to watch. Carpenter also delights in having a lot of "jump" moments in the movie...which are fun but do add a bit of cheesiness that distracts somewhat from the sense of growing helplessness and alienation that Trent goes through.
I love the talent in this movie. Sam Neill really hits the mark as a man losing control in about every sense imaginable, and Jurgen Prochnow is very convincing as a creepy writer-turned-dark messiah. (His accent works for me in this role, but your mileage may vary.) You might notice a familiar looking young boy on a bicycle when Trent finally gets out of Hobb's End...this was one of Hayden Christiansen's first movie parts.
Like many films of the genre, I think "In The Mouth Of Madness" is one of those movies that either works for you or doesn't. I would also argue that a deciding factor may be how a potential viewer answers the questions: what if reality as we know it is not a fixed, static thing...but rather potentially fluid? What if the rules changed? Is such a thing possible? I give this movie 3.5 black churches out of 5.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
All Souls Day: Dia de los Muertos
All Souls Day: Dia de los Muertos...2005...88 minutes...(TVMA)...starring Marisa Ramirez, Travis Wester, Nicole Hiltz, Laz Alonso, David Keith, Danny Trejo, and an appearance by Jeffrey Combs...written by Mark A. Altman...directed by Jeremy Kasten
Some towns just have all the trouble. Some towns also seem to attract people passing through like flies. In the horror paradigm , these two qualities are linked...the more trouble, the more people just have to pass through at the wromg time. Take Alicia and Joss, for example, who are on a road trip to meet Alicia's parents. The couple manage to come through at a same time a procession is carrying a casket...which they nearly hit, and the contents of which come spilling out. Too bad the contents turn out to be a young girl with her tongue cut out. It only gets worse for the couple from this point, with tracherous sheriffs, failed sacrifices, strange innkeepers, and the dead rising from their graves.
I selected this movie off my OnDemand from Starz, so I missed the fact that this was a movie made for SyFy. My mistake. I'm not going to belabor this particular review, because I've already wasted enough time on this selection by watching it. Suffice to say that with the last three names involved (Hey, David Keith is a local guy done good, so I root for him.) the movie still hasn't been saved. It's not a traditional zombie movie, at all, and honestly never finds its way. The gore is light, and honestly the movie comes off as so boring, you fall asleep and thusly miss some of the large plot holes.
The summary: don't go here. Just don't.
I give it 1.5 weird skeleton carvings out of 5.
Some towns just have all the trouble. Some towns also seem to attract people passing through like flies. In the horror paradigm , these two qualities are linked...the more trouble, the more people just have to pass through at the wromg time. Take Alicia and Joss, for example, who are on a road trip to meet Alicia's parents. The couple manage to come through at a same time a procession is carrying a casket...which they nearly hit, and the contents of which come spilling out. Too bad the contents turn out to be a young girl with her tongue cut out. It only gets worse for the couple from this point, with tracherous sheriffs, failed sacrifices, strange innkeepers, and the dead rising from their graves.
I selected this movie off my OnDemand from Starz, so I missed the fact that this was a movie made for SyFy. My mistake. I'm not going to belabor this particular review, because I've already wasted enough time on this selection by watching it. Suffice to say that with the last three names involved (Hey, David Keith is a local guy done good, so I root for him.) the movie still hasn't been saved. It's not a traditional zombie movie, at all, and honestly never finds its way. The gore is light, and honestly the movie comes off as so boring, you fall asleep and thusly miss some of the large plot holes.
The summary: don't go here. Just don't.
I give it 1.5 weird skeleton carvings out of 5.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Blair Witch Project
The Blair Witch Project...1999...81 minutes...rated R...starring Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, and Michael C. Williams...written and directed by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez
I thought this selection would be appropriate after the last post. Most of you already know the story: three film students (Heather, Josh, and Mike) were making a documentary about a Maryland legend known as the Blair Witch, and decided to hike into the Maryland woods in order to find the sites where strange things have been reported to happen. The only thing that was recovered after they were reported missing was the film footage that was shot...which only deepened the mystery and controversy surrounding the case. What's shown is the recovered footage.
Or so the premise for the movie, web site, and all related materials went. Blair Witch was remarkable when it came out for being made at a very reasonable cost, and getting the distribution that it did. The marketing behind it was inspired as well, using a website to help spread buzz about the "strange case of 3 missing film students". Of course, it's now remarkable as being the genesis of the "unsteady cam" movies as I like to call them. By this, I'm referring to films being shot from the vantage of the characters such as Cloverfield and Quarantine, to name a couple.
The movie does work in many ways as we watch the intrepid filmmakers get further and further into trouble, and the reactions we as movie viewers are seeing feel very real. From what I understand of the behind-the-scenes process, most of the "acting" wasn't that much acting...talk about people being willing to suffer for their art... so it's not surprising that we feel for these people. The pace of the film stays active, and the scene where they find the hanging stick-men is truly a moment where you know things have taken a turn for the eerie.
Of course, watching the movie can be hard...especially if you don't do well with shaky camera work. Yes, it's accurate for what is being presented, but I know some people who just can't do films of that nature. A lot of people were also unhappy that the audience was shown very little in terms of effects or seeing what "it" was. The movie presented a lot of different tales associated with the Blair Witch legend, and a lot of what was put out wasn't explored. There's a great amount of tension building as the events progress, but whether or not there's payoff is up for debate. (Even more came out with the associated site and games that helped market the Blair Witch phenomenon, as well as in an add-on feature with the three actors on the DVD) Of course, the movie precedes a lot of the computer effects that would become available to people not long after, and this fact has to be kept in mind as well. Lastly, people who may not be familiar with the movie may be very familiar with one of the seminal moments of Blair Witch; Heather's confession shot in extreme close-up...because that scene had been heavily parodied.
Most of the movie I have to leave to viewers to decide for themselves if it works or not. I will say that, for what it is and working within the limitations that the cast and crew had, Blair Witch holds up pretty well. Certainly it added ideas to the filming process in general, and may have helped pave the way for smaller companies to get movies like the recent "Colin" out to the attention of a bigger audience. That alone makes it worth noting. I give it 3 dangling stick-men out of 5.
I thought this selection would be appropriate after the last post. Most of you already know the story: three film students (Heather, Josh, and Mike) were making a documentary about a Maryland legend known as the Blair Witch, and decided to hike into the Maryland woods in order to find the sites where strange things have been reported to happen. The only thing that was recovered after they were reported missing was the film footage that was shot...which only deepened the mystery and controversy surrounding the case. What's shown is the recovered footage.
Or so the premise for the movie, web site, and all related materials went. Blair Witch was remarkable when it came out for being made at a very reasonable cost, and getting the distribution that it did. The marketing behind it was inspired as well, using a website to help spread buzz about the "strange case of 3 missing film students". Of course, it's now remarkable as being the genesis of the "unsteady cam" movies as I like to call them. By this, I'm referring to films being shot from the vantage of the characters such as Cloverfield and Quarantine, to name a couple.
The movie does work in many ways as we watch the intrepid filmmakers get further and further into trouble, and the reactions we as movie viewers are seeing feel very real. From what I understand of the behind-the-scenes process, most of the "acting" wasn't that much acting...talk about people being willing to suffer for their art... so it's not surprising that we feel for these people. The pace of the film stays active, and the scene where they find the hanging stick-men is truly a moment where you know things have taken a turn for the eerie.
Of course, watching the movie can be hard...especially if you don't do well with shaky camera work. Yes, it's accurate for what is being presented, but I know some people who just can't do films of that nature. A lot of people were also unhappy that the audience was shown very little in terms of effects or seeing what "it" was. The movie presented a lot of different tales associated with the Blair Witch legend, and a lot of what was put out wasn't explored. There's a great amount of tension building as the events progress, but whether or not there's payoff is up for debate. (Even more came out with the associated site and games that helped market the Blair Witch phenomenon, as well as in an add-on feature with the three actors on the DVD) Of course, the movie precedes a lot of the computer effects that would become available to people not long after, and this fact has to be kept in mind as well. Lastly, people who may not be familiar with the movie may be very familiar with one of the seminal moments of Blair Witch; Heather's confession shot in extreme close-up...because that scene had been heavily parodied.
Most of the movie I have to leave to viewers to decide for themselves if it works or not. I will say that, for what it is and working within the limitations that the cast and crew had, Blair Witch holds up pretty well. Certainly it added ideas to the filming process in general, and may have helped pave the way for smaller companies to get movies like the recent "Colin" out to the attention of a bigger audience. That alone makes it worth noting. I give it 3 dangling stick-men out of 5.
NAMR: Reporting on Knoxville Horror Film Fest
I made it to Friday night of the film festival, and was glad to have done so. Relix Theatre is a venue that's a bit more relaxed than your typical movie house; you can buy beer if that's your thing, pizza was on sale for food, and the seats were either church pews or folding chairs. I'm happy to report that the turnout was good; I had no idea how many people might show but it looked liked the place was filled, yet we weren't stacked on top of each other like cordwood.
The organizers had collected an impressive selection of 25 short films to present, ranging from local productions from here in "Knox Vegas" to international choices from France, Argentina, and Germany. They were arranged in six blocks, and in between were breaks where people could get more beverage or could win items from an equally impressive amount of booty that the festival's sponsors donators provided. I'm happy to report that I got a part of the bounty; knowing horror trivia CAN be a good thing.
Like any film festival, the selections ranged from wonderful to not so wonderful to just plain odd, but what I found encouraging was simply the amount of local people making what were very obviously labors of love. I guess I've been living under a rock, but I'm learning we have a thriving film community. I'm also quite refreshed to see the amount of support the festival got in terms of sponsorship and turnout. Hopefully there's enough to see the festival continue.
Some notes for people who may attend the Fest next year: if you're a person who can't stand distraction when viewing films, the relaxed atmosphere may not be condusive to your peace of mind: despite the organizers' best efforts, there are still people texting in the middle of selections, and people come and go from their seats to talk to others, get more beverage, and generally rummage about. Some of it has to happen, of course, as the staff has to keep supplies stocked...but it's fair warning I'm giving. Also, sometimes things don't run so smoothly...certain films just refuse to run without problems...and the event didn't end until about 1 to 1:30 in the morning, so be prepared to stay late if you want to see everything.
I must reiterate and stress: the whole Knoxville Horror Film Fest is obviously a labor of love, and that passion shone through the whole night. So, hats off to everyone involved, and I hope that next year I can attend both nights!
The organizers had collected an impressive selection of 25 short films to present, ranging from local productions from here in "Knox Vegas" to international choices from France, Argentina, and Germany. They were arranged in six blocks, and in between were breaks where people could get more beverage or could win items from an equally impressive amount of booty that the festival's sponsors donators provided. I'm happy to report that I got a part of the bounty; knowing horror trivia CAN be a good thing.
Like any film festival, the selections ranged from wonderful to not so wonderful to just plain odd, but what I found encouraging was simply the amount of local people making what were very obviously labors of love. I guess I've been living under a rock, but I'm learning we have a thriving film community. I'm also quite refreshed to see the amount of support the festival got in terms of sponsorship and turnout. Hopefully there's enough to see the festival continue.
Some notes for people who may attend the Fest next year: if you're a person who can't stand distraction when viewing films, the relaxed atmosphere may not be condusive to your peace of mind: despite the organizers' best efforts, there are still people texting in the middle of selections, and people come and go from their seats to talk to others, get more beverage, and generally rummage about. Some of it has to happen, of course, as the staff has to keep supplies stocked...but it's fair warning I'm giving. Also, sometimes things don't run so smoothly...certain films just refuse to run without problems...and the event didn't end until about 1 to 1:30 in the morning, so be prepared to stay late if you want to see everything.
I must reiterate and stress: the whole Knoxville Horror Film Fest is obviously a labor of love, and that passion shone through the whole night. So, hats off to everyone involved, and I hope that next year I can attend both nights!
Friday, October 22, 2010
Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Night of the Living Dead...1968...96 minutes...unrated...starring Duane Jones, Judith O'Dea, Karl Hardman, and Russell Streiner...written by John Russo and George Romero...directed by George Romero
Barbara and her brother Johnny have gone to the cemetary to place flowers on their father's grave, but have picked the wrong night to do it (naturally). After a bit of sibling banter, where Johnny makes fun of his sister and a wandering stranger, Barbara goes to apologize to the passerby and is attacked. Johnny leaps in to protect Barbara but gets killed in the ensuing fight. Barbara flees and, after wrecking the car the pair came in, makes her way to a nearby farmhouse. Still in shock, she encounters other people trapped in the home...all of whom are trying to survive the eerie crisis they find themselves in. All over the country, the dead have started to rise and are now preying on the living, killing and eating anyone they can find.
Honestly, I'm not sure I can say anything more about this particular movie that hasn't already been said. It is the wellspring from which the zombie subgenre of horror has sprung from, and its effects can be seen all over popular culture. Zombies can be found in comics, video games, TV (especially with the new Walking Dead show to premier Oct. 31st), and of course movies. There's even a subdivsion now of zombie comedies, with such films as Shaun of the Dead, the previously reviewed Dead and Breakfast, Fido, and Zombieland just to name a few. Even the phrase "Zombie Apolcalypse" is starting to be found popping up in all sorts of places. While there were movies featuring the idea of the zombie before Romero, this selection truly set the standard from which later creations have come.
But to be fair the movie survives as a classic because it's still a good movie. Certainly at the time, the level of gore and shock value provided was much higher than what we would consider it today, and many people found it to be as offensive and repulsive as many would find the Saw movies of today. Now, to jaded horror fans, the effects are almost quaint...though being in black and white, I would argue that there's still some effective moments that can disturb. More important, though, are the other aspects of the movie: the performances are effective...Judith O'Dea as a woman in shock feels very true...and the pace of the story is steady. I'm truly fond of the dialogue in the movie; from the opening squabble between Barbara and Johnny to the sheriff's comments as he's interviewed. Ultimately, though, what works most effectively is the fact that while the zombies are the danger, it's the inner nature of humanity that decides the fate of the survivors.
The only thing that I might argue is off is the whole "Venusian radiation" theory, but I like to think that it was just something authorities ran with because "We have no idea" just wouldn't fly.
Watch this movie to see where the zombie craze came from. Watch this movie because it's one of the films that horror buffs always talk about. Watch this movie because it's a good movie. I don't care, just as long as you watch this movie. The rating: 4.5 gnawed limbs out of 5
Barbara and her brother Johnny have gone to the cemetary to place flowers on their father's grave, but have picked the wrong night to do it (naturally). After a bit of sibling banter, where Johnny makes fun of his sister and a wandering stranger, Barbara goes to apologize to the passerby and is attacked. Johnny leaps in to protect Barbara but gets killed in the ensuing fight. Barbara flees and, after wrecking the car the pair came in, makes her way to a nearby farmhouse. Still in shock, she encounters other people trapped in the home...all of whom are trying to survive the eerie crisis they find themselves in. All over the country, the dead have started to rise and are now preying on the living, killing and eating anyone they can find.
Honestly, I'm not sure I can say anything more about this particular movie that hasn't already been said. It is the wellspring from which the zombie subgenre of horror has sprung from, and its effects can be seen all over popular culture. Zombies can be found in comics, video games, TV (especially with the new Walking Dead show to premier Oct. 31st), and of course movies. There's even a subdivsion now of zombie comedies, with such films as Shaun of the Dead, the previously reviewed Dead and Breakfast, Fido, and Zombieland just to name a few. Even the phrase "Zombie Apolcalypse" is starting to be found popping up in all sorts of places. While there were movies featuring the idea of the zombie before Romero, this selection truly set the standard from which later creations have come.
But to be fair the movie survives as a classic because it's still a good movie. Certainly at the time, the level of gore and shock value provided was much higher than what we would consider it today, and many people found it to be as offensive and repulsive as many would find the Saw movies of today. Now, to jaded horror fans, the effects are almost quaint...though being in black and white, I would argue that there's still some effective moments that can disturb. More important, though, are the other aspects of the movie: the performances are effective...Judith O'Dea as a woman in shock feels very true...and the pace of the story is steady. I'm truly fond of the dialogue in the movie; from the opening squabble between Barbara and Johnny to the sheriff's comments as he's interviewed. Ultimately, though, what works most effectively is the fact that while the zombies are the danger, it's the inner nature of humanity that decides the fate of the survivors.
The only thing that I might argue is off is the whole "Venusian radiation" theory, but I like to think that it was just something authorities ran with because "We have no idea" just wouldn't fly.
Watch this movie to see where the zombie craze came from. Watch this movie because it's one of the films that horror buffs always talk about. Watch this movie because it's a good movie. I don't care, just as long as you watch this movie. The rating: 4.5 gnawed limbs out of 5
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Legion
Legion...2010...100 minutes...R...starring Paul Bettany, Lucas Black, Tyrese Gibson, Adrienne Palicki, Charles S. Dutton, and Dennis Quaid...written by Peter Schink and Scott Charles Stewart...directed by Scott Charles Stewart
God has lost faith in humanity and has decided to wipe mankind off the face of the Earth. The only chance for man surviving is a pregnant woman in the nigh-deserted truck stop of Paradise Falls, and an angel who has decided to defy the Divine Word and protect the baby she is about to have. This time, the end of the world isn't going to be a flood, but an angelic horde that possesses the weak to attack the strong. Can a small band of people hope to win out?
So, there's an appropriate enough blurb...and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure you can call Legion an honest-to-goodness horror movie. I'm also unsure where else you would put this movie, and since there is a strong supernatural element in the film I decided to proceed with a review. I believe there's always a slippery slope in labeling movies and sticking with such labels very tightly, because many movies just don't fit in any one niche but straddle these lines...sometimes blithely. On a more practical level, I've got a quota to meet. ;-) At any point, on with the review.
Whenever a movie starts dealing with themes about God, angels, and various religious organizations, it gets into an area that's going to make people unhappy...even if the movie in question handles such ideas with care. The movie starts off with a scene of Michael landing on Earth...reminiscent of The Prophecy...and divesting himself of his wings to make himself human. In the process, he loses his halo...which is also a very thick collar. I personally wasn't offended but the moment did take me out of the film long enough to note it and see that we were going to be diving blithely into controversy.
That might have been the goal, because honestly the movie didn't feel very fresh or new to me. I've already referenced The Prophecy, and Legion pulls a lot from it. There's also moments that feel pulled out of other movies, especially in a visual sense: Exorcist III and 30 Days of Night with the looks of the possessed people come to mind. Of course these moments were supposed to be new because it wasn't devils, or vampires this time...but angels. Yeah, whatever.
I really didn't feel like I got to know any of the characters that well either...the woman who is to bear the holy child was hardly a sympathetic character, her would-be suitor and friend has been having strange dreams that we never really learn more about, and the rest of the group who find themselves at Paradise Falls are more caricatures than actual people. I don't blame the actors, they were doing the best with what they got...and there's a few good moments to be found nonetheless.
I did like the inevitable angel fight, mostly because I like the idea of wings as both shield and weapon. Stilll, the ending seemed rather forced, and a moment that could have been one of revelation about the role of angels from their point of view instead turned into more of a divine "oops". I also had a tangental question at the end of the movie: what was up with the flies? Again, The Prophecy did it first...and honestly did it better.
Due to the beauty of OnDemand, I didn't pay money to see this movie. I can't recommend anyone else spending actual money to see it either...unless you're an independent filmmaker making an argument about how big budget doesn't always make for better film. I give it 2 Swiss-army maces out of 5.
God has lost faith in humanity and has decided to wipe mankind off the face of the Earth. The only chance for man surviving is a pregnant woman in the nigh-deserted truck stop of Paradise Falls, and an angel who has decided to defy the Divine Word and protect the baby she is about to have. This time, the end of the world isn't going to be a flood, but an angelic horde that possesses the weak to attack the strong. Can a small band of people hope to win out?
So, there's an appropriate enough blurb...and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure you can call Legion an honest-to-goodness horror movie. I'm also unsure where else you would put this movie, and since there is a strong supernatural element in the film I decided to proceed with a review. I believe there's always a slippery slope in labeling movies and sticking with such labels very tightly, because many movies just don't fit in any one niche but straddle these lines...sometimes blithely. On a more practical level, I've got a quota to meet. ;-) At any point, on with the review.
Whenever a movie starts dealing with themes about God, angels, and various religious organizations, it gets into an area that's going to make people unhappy...even if the movie in question handles such ideas with care. The movie starts off with a scene of Michael landing on Earth...reminiscent of The Prophecy...and divesting himself of his wings to make himself human. In the process, he loses his halo...which is also a very thick collar. I personally wasn't offended but the moment did take me out of the film long enough to note it and see that we were going to be diving blithely into controversy.
That might have been the goal, because honestly the movie didn't feel very fresh or new to me. I've already referenced The Prophecy, and Legion pulls a lot from it. There's also moments that feel pulled out of other movies, especially in a visual sense: Exorcist III and 30 Days of Night with the looks of the possessed people come to mind. Of course these moments were supposed to be new because it wasn't devils, or vampires this time...but angels. Yeah, whatever.
I really didn't feel like I got to know any of the characters that well either...the woman who is to bear the holy child was hardly a sympathetic character, her would-be suitor and friend has been having strange dreams that we never really learn more about, and the rest of the group who find themselves at Paradise Falls are more caricatures than actual people. I don't blame the actors, they were doing the best with what they got...and there's a few good moments to be found nonetheless.
I did like the inevitable angel fight, mostly because I like the idea of wings as both shield and weapon. Stilll, the ending seemed rather forced, and a moment that could have been one of revelation about the role of angels from their point of view instead turned into more of a divine "oops". I also had a tangental question at the end of the movie: what was up with the flies? Again, The Prophecy did it first...and honestly did it better.
Due to the beauty of OnDemand, I didn't pay money to see this movie. I can't recommend anyone else spending actual money to see it either...unless you're an independent filmmaker making an argument about how big budget doesn't always make for better film. I give it 2 Swiss-army maces out of 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)