Posted by admin | 0 Comments

The Last Exorcism – Review (second opinion)

reviewed by Skot
directed by Daniel Stamm, 2010
(read Melissa’s review here)
___________________________

If you believe in God, you have to believe in the Devil.”  Or so said the reverend Cotton Marcus in Eli Roth’s new movie, The Last Exorcism.  That’s even the tagline on some of the move posters.  Actually, I think he’s got it wrong.  It should be the other way around: “if you believe in the Devil, then you must believe in God.”  And this is the point the movie ends up making.

What should we make of the movie poster with a crucifix and the words, “Believe in Him” above it?  The girl in the poster is bowing in submission, though contorted into a grotesque version of a believer paying devotion before the symbol of the Lord.  Pictures mean things.  And I’m still wondering what this one means.

Cotton Marcus is the magnetic pastor of a pentecostal-ish congregation in the deep South.  He started preaching in his dad’s church when he was 8 years old.  He’s a born performer.  Doing exorcisms has been a family ministry, passed from father to son, for generations.  However, during a family crisis, Cotton discovers that his faith is lost.  He continued the charade of his ministry, even the exorcisms, because. . . well, it’s a living.  And besides, he figured he was basically helping people.  Things change again when he learns of an episode where a child is accidentally killed during an exorcism.  This is his turning point.  Cotton decides to blow his own cover by performing one last exorcism with a documentary film crew recording his spiritual warfare sleight of hand.  The minister randomly chooses one of the frequent letters he receives from troubled souls requesting his services and off they go.

They arrive at the Sweetzer farm in poor rural Louisiana where they meet Nell, an angelically innocent girl whose father is convinced she is inhabited by the Devil.  Cotton employs his usual tricks, allowing the camera see how he does things behind the scenes.  Things get interesting when the counterfeit demon slayer comes up against something real.

To say more about the plot would be to give too much away.  The central question is whether the devil is real and, if so, what implications should this have on one’s belief in God.

When I heard that Eli Roth was producing The Last Exorcism, I expected more than I got, which is not necessarily a bad thing.  Actually, I appreciate the comparative restraint this movie exercises.  Too many occult themed movies feel the need to top the last in terms of shock and awe, leading many into the realm of the absurd.  A general rule of thumb for storytellers is to show, not to tell.  But one can show too much.  Equally important to restraint and good editing is timing.  If you must show, then do so at the exact best time to have the greatest impact.

Many people I’ve talked to say they disliked the ending.  The director definitely took a risk.  In my opinion, the ending is not entirely satisfying, but it wasn’t  a total miss.  I needed just a little bit more.  The film is good, not great.  It takes the increasingly popular found footage approach, which still works for me.

Take a little bit Rosemary’s Baby, a little bit The Exorcist, a little bit Blair Witch Project and more than a smidge of The Exorcism of Emily Rose.  Stir them on a low heat and you get this new film.  The Last Exorcism is not nearly as good as any of the above mentioned projects, but is still probably better than most occult-themed films.

Read More

Posted by Hallo | 2 Comments

The Last Exorcism – Review

reviewed by Melissa
directed by Daniel Stamm, 2010
(read Skot’s review here)
_________________________

The Last Exorcism is directed by Daniel Stamm produced be Eli Roth and stars Patrick Fabian and Ashley Bell.   It is the story of a disillusioned preacher who has decided to do a documentary showing how exorcisms can be faked.   The movie begins with Reverend Cotton Marcus being filmed for a documentary exposing exorcism hoaxes. Cotton has done over a hundred exorcisms and has decided to prove that they are a hoax after reading about a boy that was killed during an exorcism. Patrick has gathered a film crew for one last exorcism to expose how he fools people into believing he has exorcised a demon.

Cotton randomly picks a letter he has received about a girl who is possessed named Nell Sweetzer. Patrick and the crew go to the Sweetzer rural farmhouse where the sixteen year old lives with her older brother and father. Once they arrive Cotton realizes that Nell has problems. Having lost her mother to cancer she seems to be suffering psychological issues and is killing the family livestock, though she has no memory of these acts.   Cotton does a fake exorcism and then tells the family she is fine and leaves to go to a hotel for the night. Nell shows up at Cotton’s hotel room that evening in a catatonic state. Cotton and the film crew take Nell to the hospital and then back home. The next day Nell attacks her brother Caleb which prompts the return of Reverend Cotton and the film crew.

The remainder of the movie takes place with Cotton and the film crew trying to talk Nell’s father in to the fact his daughter needs counseling and her father convinced she is possessed by a demon.  While this debate is going on Nell is spiraling out of control with devastating results.

I was incredibly excited to see this movie and the first 80 minutes of it did not let me down. From the opening scene with Cotton I liked him. He was a fraud but I took to him and he made me laugh. He does seem to care about people and this is why he is out to expose exorcisms as hoaxes. He has lost his faith but through out the whole movie I was cheering for him and hoping he regained it.

I thought the cinematography was engrossing and felt like a documentary. I felt like I was watching something on the Discovery channel. The camera did an amazing job of searching out the rooms and catching a glimpse of what was going on beyond the camera lens. I would hear noises and was afraid what the camera was going to find, and there were really no cheap shocks in the entire movie. I also thought the movie built at a very good pace. I felt engrossed with the characters and I was involved with the plot. The movie kept building and building at a steady pace to the climax. That is where the movie takes a turn for the worse. The last 10 minutes of the film disgusted me as all this incredible build up was destroyed in one cheesy conclusion. I say that because I loved the film up to that point and was very involved, then they tied up the story line in 10 minutes and it was uninspired.

The movie was ruined for me with the ending but it is worth a see because Patrick Fabian and Ashley Bell do an outstanding job and the cinematography helps to propel the storyline.

Read More

Posted by Hallo | 2 Comments

Splice – Review

reviewed by hallo
directed by Vincenzo Natali, 2010
________________________

Vincenzo Natali’s 2010 sci-fi/horror release Splice provides a fascinating two-tier exploration for discerning movie-goers.  One the one hand, the movie must be evaluated on the rudimentary premise of overall theatrical quality.  In other words, is the movie well directed, does it make sense, does it keep your attention, does the viewer leave satisfied?  On the other hand, Splice provides a critical commentary on the underlying question of eugenics and the ongoing dilemma between innate moralism and the contemporary reality of a biological revolution.  There are issues raised in Splice that must be addressed, and in fact will be addressed within our lifetime.  For that reason, this film makes me shudder.

Splice is about a romantically involved couple, Clive and Elsa, who are also brilliant scientists leading a team of fellow biologists in the creation of two “self created” species.  Taking the DNA from a host of various animals, Clive and Elsa managed to splice together two creatures who have the capability to provide helpful biogenetic samplings that will increase agricultural productivity.  With their success comes their desire to take what they have “created” to the next level:  human DNA.  Clive and Elsa are convinced that if they are allowed to include human DNA in their process, then many health issues and diseases would be able to be instantly remedied.  Unfortunately for them, they are given the stop sign by the folks who have the money.  That, of course, will never do.  So, Clive and Elsa set out in secret to make their new human spliced creation.

Interestingly, Clive begins to have doubts.  He raises the appropriate moral questions about bringing the sanctify of human live into a test tube situation.  Elsa, on the other hand, is more concerned about the moral question of the millions dying from life-threatening diseases.  As we will discover, her desires are far more reaching, and soul stirring, than just science.

It was at this point in the film that I realized I was watching a different variety of the 1999 horror masterpiece Deep Blue Sea.  In that wonderful film, sharks brains are being altered in order to provide a cure for Alzheimer disease.  It is the lead lady that is fixated on seeing the study through to the end, even when that means going against the guidelines set forth by the pharmaceutical company.  As we all know, the end result is a bunch of people getting eaten by really smart sharks.

When the new human spliced creation is birthed, Elsa immediately begins treating it like a daughter, or as Clive cautiously puts it, a pet.  He, on the other hand, wants to remain in science mode and treat the creation like any other specimen.  Sensing the need to give the creation a name, Elsa comes up with Dren.  As Dren continues to get older, we begin to see a fascinating switch in roles.  Clive becomes more lovingly involved with Dren while Elsa begins to take step backwards into science mode.  This comes to a cringing climax when Elsa, in Clive’s absence, straps Dren to a table and cuts off part of her tail.  We learn that Elsa comes from a mentally troubled family and although the unknown factor of having a child has kept her from pursuing motherhood, she was able to find peace in the control forum of the laboratory.  When that control begins to disappear, Elsa becomes more and more fixated on science and experiment rather than life and nurture.  From that point, the concepts of normalcy, decency, and human dignity become blurred beyond the point of recognition, so that Clive ends up sleeping with Dren and correctly explains to an appalled Elsa that “we have changed all the rules.”  The movie reaches its conclusion with Dren experiencing a sex change and becoming violent.  Ultimately, after raping Elsa, he is killed.

Judging Splice based on its effectiveness as a good, entertaining movie is difficult to do because, in my case, the cultural, theological, and human issues carry great weight.  That, of course, is part of the director’s intent.  Yet, I found the movie to be poorly directed in certain points, especially when Clive and Elsa are working to create the new human DNA creature.  Those scenes came across as a couple of high school students studying for a science test the next day; it just wasn’t believable.  If folks are not able or interested in wrestling with the deeper undertones of the film, then it will fail to capture their imaginations.

On the other hand, Splice is a textbook example of why horror movies are extraordinarily important for not only increased cultural awareness on crucial issues, but more importantly for the continued need of a Christian worldview.  At one point during a presentation of Clive and Elsa’s first two created beings, the president of the company funding their work proudly announces that these creatures “were not born because of luck or fate, but by design.”  Embedded within her introductory remarks is the nerve-wracking, victorious implication that we are now able to “play God.”  From a Christian point of view, the Bible gives humanity the blessed dual-obligation of both dominion and stewardship over creation.  This certainly provides an interpretation that our use of animals can and should be for the betterment of humanity when possible.  At the most basic level, we acknowledge this when eat a hamburger.  Yet, we are not without limits on the dominion side of our rule and it must be coupled with proper stewardship before God.  Clive experiences a profound revelation of this fact when he acknowledges to Elsa that they have changed all the rules, nothing is sacred any longer, nothing is “right.”  Despite the scientific and technological advancements that make our world a better place to live, Splice solemnly reminds us that we are the created, not the creator.  Whenever our ambitions take us to a level beyond our created purpose and entice us to play the God role, the consequences will be disastrous.

Finally, both Splice and Deep Blue Sea (and others) force the viewer to wrestle with the “Robin Hood” ethical question.  Robin Hood, of course, breaks the law in order to serve a good purpose.  In both films, the motivating factor in playing God was to ease the suffering of humanity.  Yet, both films are built on the conclusion that such noble pursuits are not always the end-all be-all.  There are other, and at times more critical, issues to consider.  Besides, Splice demonstrates that the humanitarian reasons are actually a red-herring for Elsa who is instead motivated by her desire to conquer her family demons.  In a sin-cursed world, just how pure are the assertions of altruism?

Thus, Splice is mediocre when it comes to well-crafted story telling and directing.  It is powerful when it comes to critically thinking through human issues.  For that reason, I commend it to you.

Read More

Posted by Hallo | 0 Comments

The Devil’s Rejects – Review

reviewed by hallo
directed by Rob Zombie, 2005
________________________

In the world of gore and explicit imagery, the question that goes hand in hand with films of this nature is whether the over-the-top images tell a story that would fall short without them.  For most people, they can never see the purpose, and that is understandable.  Zombie’s sequel to House of 1000 Corpses falls well short of the original film, but still has something to offer.

I will admit, the first hour of The Devil’s Rejects had me thinking, “this is just Rob Zombie attempting to disgust as many people as possible.”  I am a huge fan of his first film, “House of 1000 corpses” (see below), granted, it is a Texas Chainsaw Massacre rip off.  But, it is a good rip off.

However, about 2/3 through the film, a scene happens that turned the movie around for me.  The leading police officer on the case, whose mind of revenge over the death of his brother finally takes him to the land of insanity, calls in the local leading movie critic to help the case with an explanation of Groucho Marx films, which helps the officer understand the methodology of the demented family.  He came to discover that all the names of the family were taken from Groucho Marx characters.  This particular film critic, such a huge fan of Groucho Marx, ends up turning his help with the case into a rant and rave on how the death of Marx was overshadowed by the fact that Elvis died just a few days previous.  His passion and obsession with his love shines through in a big way, almost to the point of getting shot by the local, Elvis loving police officers.

It was then that I understood the direction of the film, at least for me.  The Devil’s Rejects offers the viewer an exploration into the possibility that each of us has our own idea of what needs to be emphasized.  All the characters examined in the film were radically obsessed with their particular viewpoint on life, which ultimately led to ruin of each character.  A revenge driven police officer, a movie critic whose favorite actor doesn’t get enough credit, a psychotic family whose quest for the lust of life continues to bring them closer to death.

I suppose the explicit imagery says this to the viewer:  Anything taken to excessive limits can turn into a very nasty, dirty, ugly portrait of our own destruction.

Have a nice day.

Read More

Posted by Hallo | 0 Comments

House of 1000 Corpses – Review

reviewed by hallo
directed by Rob Zombie, 2003
___________________________

My appreciation for the talent of Rob Zombie goes way back to the early 90’s when I first heard the White Zombie song “Black Sunshine.” I was hooked on the song, the band, and the horror-dominated fantasy style of Rob’s music. So it was with great interest and excitement that I learned of his 2003 directorial debut entitled House of 1000 Corpses. Upon my first viewing, I labeled it as an instant classic and made the bold statement that Zombie might very well become the next great horror director of our time. I was right on the first one, wrong on the second.

Not that there is anything original or even fresh in House of 1000 Corpses. On the contrary, it is a well used (overly used?) backwoods story of a group of teenagers who get lost and wind up at the wrong house. Go ahead and insert the list of 300 movies you have seen that have the same plot right here. But who cares? We don’t watch horror in order to always see the next original, new thing. We watch horror to see it done well. And Rob Zombie does this one well.

The opening scene is incredibly important for the rest of film as it establishes a good many things about the direction Zombie is going. First, the film will be dealing with vulgar characters and subject matter. Second, thanks to Zombie’s directing, we find ourselves weirdly attached to these awful characters and find them likable. Third, Zombie draws heavily on his own appreciation of both the real world of horror and the fantasy world, creating an interesting mix of the two. For example, after the two couples experience “Captain Spaulding’s Museum of Monsters and Madmen” and the “Murder Ride”, we see a blending of real life killers such as Ed Gein and Albert Fish and the fictional character “Dr. Satan” who will be the ending focus of the movie.

After the two couples visit this roadside attraction, they are determined to find the stomping ground of Dr. Satan. After picking up a hitchhiker whose name is “Baby” (Sheri Moon Zombie), they of course blow a tire in the middle of a rainstorm and must wait for Baby and one of the unfortunate guys (Rainn Wilson from The Office) to visit Baby’s house and get her brother with a tow truck. Well, from this point things seem to be strangely out of place and the carnage begins. Once the group gets back to the house they experience a disturbing dinner with the family followed by a whacked out dinner show. Finally, the car is fixed. The group gets about 20 feet down the driveway when they are attacked by the family, the car is destroyed, and they are locked in the house. Which, of course, begs the question: Why fix the car in the first place if you are going to just destroy 15 seconds later? And why let the group get 20 feet down the driveway? Oh well, who cares? It made for a cool scene.

From this point on we begin to learn more about the creative carnage of Otis (Bill Moseley). He takes his killing very seriously. Zombie will do quick cuts to black and white footage he filmed using an ordinary camcorder, then back to the film. Several times throughout a single scene, Zombie will use different lighting and colors just to keep adding confusion to what is happening.

I must admit, the final scene is just a complete question mark. They are lowering the 2 surviving members of the group down into a grave which turns out to be a series of tunnels. But why put that tape recorder playing the super-strange sounds on top of the two victims? Who knows? Finally, after running through tunnels being chased by weird looking dudes, our remaining survivor encounters Dr. Satan. She does manage to get away, but not before being picked up by Captain Spalding, who we know learn is in-cahoots with Otis and the family.

So, House of 1000 Corpses is somewhat predictable, a bit cliched, and very animated. But Zombie does a great job with the camera, the scenes keep your interest, and he uses just the right amount of gore to keep you flinching, but not make you walk out the door. The DVD is worth its price just to listen to the directors commentary which is by far the best I have ever listened to. It gives great insight into Zombie’s approach and his vision for the movie. If you are a fan of Tobe Hooper and the like, then House of 1000 Corpses is for you. I wish I could say the same thing for Zombies subsequent films. But this one is a keeper.

Read More

Posted by admin | 0 Comments

The Girl Next Door – Review

reviewed by Danny
directed by Gregory Wilson, 2007
____________________

Gregory Wilson’s The Girl Next Door is based on the novel by legendary horror writer Jack Ketchum (which was, in turn, based on the true case of Sylvia Likens, a young girl who, in 1965, was brutally raped and murdered at the hands of her aunt and cousins).  It is one of the most disturbing horror films of the past few years.  It is also one of the most difficult to review.  I watched it a few weeks ago, and I have started this review a half-dozen times since then.  Why is it so problematic?  I’m not sure I can say.  Part of the reason is the film seems to expect the viewer to be entertained by the vile acts of a monster of a mother, her children, and many of the children in the film’s fictionalized suburban neighborhood.  Though I, like many horror fans, have no problem with graphic violence and gore, seeing the violence done to the young girl in the movie is vastly more disturbing than watching Jason killing a slutty teenager in some comically exaggerated way.  On top of that, I wonder at the emptiness of the film.  Its only message seems to be that people are capable of some sick stuff, alone or in groups.  I’m not sure that message is original enough or that the execution is good enough to make that a compelling.  Still, I did find the film compelling, specifically because I could not understand the actions of the protagonist who, despite not participating in the torture, rape and murder and actively trying to help the girl escape, might be the film’s true villain.

After a modern day prologue, the film opens with our protagonist, David, cute-meeting Megan while catching “crawdaddies” in the river.  We soon learn that Meg and her younger sister (who is crippled by polio) have moved in with their aunt and his next door neighbor, Ruth.  Ruth’s house is where all the neighborhood boys hang out and drink beer and watch television.  David thinks of her as his cool neighbor, but it is clear from these early scenes that there is something wrong with the relationship between Ruth and the girls.  It isn’t long before we see Ruth abusing Meg and her sister verbally and physically.  There is constantly an sexual undercurrent in her words and actions.  Eventually things escalate and Meg ends up tied to the rafters in the basement where she is tortured by Ruth, her sons, and some of the kids in the neighborhood.

Throughout these events, David tries to help Meg where he can.  He loosens her ropes to make her more comfortable, he acts as the voice of reason when the boys want to jump start the inevitable final acts, he turns away when Ruth has her stripped nude.  In the end, he unties her and attempts to allow her to escape.  The problem is that he never really does anything to stop the torture.  In truth, he seems fascinated by what is going on.  He wouldn’t participate in those kind of acts, but one gets the idea that he might be wrestling with the fact that he is sexually excited by what he sees.  It is not hard to imagine that he is placed in the story to represent us, the viewers of the film.  We are disturbed by what is done to Meg, but we do not turn off the film.  We keep watching.  In this way, the film seems to be exploring similar territory as Funny Games though in a much less self-referential way.

I can’t give The Girl Next Door my whole-hearted recommendation.  The film isn’t boring and, other than some amateurish acting, it is well made for low-budget exploitation fair.  It isn’t, however, likely to be all that enjoyable for the average horror film fan. There just isn’t enough here outside of whatever fascination there is in the David character, and that is certainly a “your mileage will vary” kind of situation.  If you are interested in the psychology of cases like the Likens one this is based on, then the film is interesting.  If not, it is probably one you can afford to avoid.

Read More