|
Post by tartanphantom on Oct 11, 2022 16:11:51 GMT -5
That reminds me of my own college years, where I was doing the same thing! The library had a subscription to Les Cahiers du Cinéma, and I couldn't get enough of its analyses of films like Nosferatu or Exorcist II : the Heretic (which I hated when I first saw it, but gained a whole new respect for when I saw what Boorman was trying to do). Right now I'm in the middle of watching The Medusa Touch, once again thanks to Youtube. An impressive cast and an a good, engaging story so far. Lino Ventura, Richard Burton, Derek Jacobi and Lee Remick in the same film? Sorry, Werewolf by Night, you'll have to wait your turn.
I'll be watching a lot of horror this month so I'll add those to my list. I already had Exorcist III added because I noticed it was directed by William Peter Blatty but never thought about Exorcist II for some reason.
I was impressed with Lino Ventura in Touchez pas au grisbi, which I watched a few months ago. I'd like to see more of his work - what do you think are his best or most iconic performances?
Too bad they don't make horror films like this one any more!
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 11, 2022 17:14:15 GMT -5
That reminds me of my own college years, where I was doing the same thing! The library had a subscription to Les Cahiers du Cinéma, and I couldn't get enough of its analyses of films like Nosferatu or Exorcist II : the Heretic (which I hated when I first saw it, but gained a whole new respect for when I saw what Boorman was trying to do). Right now I'm in the middle of watching The Medusa Touch, once again thanks to Youtube. An impressive cast and an a good, engaging story so far. Lino Ventura, Richard Burton, Derek Jacobi and Lee Remick in the same film? Sorry, Werewolf by Night, you'll have to wait your turn. I'll be watching a lot of horror this month so I'll add those to my list. I already had Exorcist III added because I noticed it was directed by William Peter Blatty but never thought about Exorcist II for some reason.
I was impressed with Lino Ventura in Touchez pas au grisbi, which I watched a few months ago. I'd like to see more of his work - what do you think are his best or most iconic performances?
There are many to chose from, but my all-time favourite is the kitchen scene in Les tontons flingueurs. Of course, Michel Audiart's dialogues help a lot!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 11, 2022 21:21:33 GMT -5
I'll be watching a lot of horror this month so I'll add those to my list. I already had Exorcist III added because I noticed it was directed by William Peter Blatty but never thought about Exorcist II for some reason.
I was impressed with Lino Ventura in Touchez pas au grisbi, which I watched a few months ago. I'd like to see more of his work - what do you think are his best or most iconic performances?
Too bad they don't make horror films like this one any more!
Never miss Monster Chiller Horror Theater, especially when they are running the work of Dr Tongue and Woody Tobias Jr!
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 11, 2022 22:59:03 GMT -5
I'll be watching a lot of horror this month so I'll add those to my list. I already had Exorcist III added because I noticed it was directed by William Peter Blatty but never thought about Exorcist II for some reason.
I was impressed with Lino Ventura in Touchez pas au grisbi, which I watched a few months ago. I'd like to see more of his work - what do you think are his best or most iconic performances?
There are many to chose from, but my all-time favourite is the kitchen scene in Les tontons flingueurs. Of course, Michel Audiart's dialogues help a lot! Thanks, will add that title to my list.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 13, 2022 12:18:52 GMT -5
The Mephisto Waltz is a pretty neat 1971 spooky film starring Alan Alda, Jacqueline Bisset, Barbara Parkins and Curd Jürgens (of The Spy of Loved Me fame).
I'm a sucker for films with the actual Devil in them, especially when Old Nick barely appears or doesn't appear at all. Accept no demonic substitute, except maybe Pazuzu: there's nothing like the real deal. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Daimon Hellstrom. Your retconned parentage makes you a virtual nonentity).
The plot hangs around souls changing bodies to escape the ravages of old age, and it doesn't beat around the bush about it. I welcome the way the main character gets what's going on pretty quickly, and instead of moaning for twenty minutes ("No, no, it's not possible, I must be imagining things") goes into solution mode... in a really unexpected way.
The ending is very ambiguous (and a little frustrating for that!) but I love ambiguous endings almost as much as I like Devil movies.
Not as good as Rosemary's Baby, no doubt, but it has nothing to be embarrassed about either. The two films would make a good double feature.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 13, 2022 18:02:06 GMT -5
The Mephisto Waltz is a pretty neat 1971 spooky film starring Alan Alda, Jacqueline Bisset, Barbara Parkins and Curd Jürgens (of The Spy of Loved Me fame). I'm a sucker for films with the actual Devil in them, especially when Old Nick barely appears or doesn't appear at all. Accept no demonic substitute, except maybe Pazuzu: there's nothing like the real deal. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Daimon Hellstrom. Your retconned parentage makes you a virtual nonentity). The plot hangs around souls changing bodies to escape the ravages of old age, and it doesn't beat around the bush about it. I welcome the way the main character gets what's going on pretty quickly, and instead of moaning for twenty minutes ("No, no, it's not possible, I must be imagining things") goes into solution mode... in a really unexpected way. The ending is very ambiguous (and a little frustrating for that!) but I love ambiguous endings almost as much as I like Devil movies. Not as good as Rosemary's Baby, no doubt, but it has nothing to be embarrassed about either. The two films would make a good double feature.
Yes, I'm the same way: even though I can't say I'm a believer anymore, I think my psyche has assimilated the entire Christian mythology at such a deep level that it's probably embedded there for good, whatever my conscious ideas and opinions about religion might be.
I remember hearing about The Mephisto Waltz as a kid and also seeing the book around, though I never read it. Don't thnk I knew that Jacqueline Bisset was in the film, she's another excellent reason for me to see it. Don't think I'll get around to it this Hallowe'en, but maybe next year.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 21, 2022 19:43:26 GMT -5
I've just watched the original Stepford Wives, having watched the disappointing remake several years ago.
Good Lord, that was a spooky film, even knowing how it ends! Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss make a great team. The setting up part of the film is perfect; it's slow, kind of boring, with nothing to really make us suspicious... which makes the story all the more convincing.
I'll admit I was a bit upset by the ending, due to the main character's behaviour (in her shoes, I would have totally risked a murder one charge) but of course it's dramatically more satisfying the way it was done.
Ira Levin knows how to tell a scary story, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 24, 2022 8:25:50 GMT -5
I had never seen The Exorcist III until this weekend. I remember that the plot's brief description in the press had left me somewhat unimpressed at the time; the body of the priest from The Exorcist is possessed by the spirit of a serial killer? Sorry, but after dealing with the likes of Pazuzu, an ordinary murderer doesn't sound that impressive as an opponent. Oh, how unfair I was!
True, if seen simply as a sequel to The Exorcist and if one expects more explosive vomit and assorted 360 degrees neck twists, this film is probably a letdown (as was The Exorcist II). It is more of a psychological drama than a horror film, even when horror elements do start creeping in or when "mundane" murder scenes are absolutely gut-wrenching. (Such scenes are described but not shown; I found that strategy as efficient as that of not showing the shark in Jaws. The unseen is always scarier).
Judged on its own, this film is very efficient, very spooky and has both an excellent cast and great dialogs between the characters played by George C. Scott and Ed Flanders. The friendship between those two is very credible and endearing, making the ensuing drama that much more moving. Brad Dourif once again plays a deranged killer, but as the song from "The Spy Who Loved Me" says, nobody does it better.
Now that I've seen it, I was wrong about the "step down" thing concerning the nature of the demonic possession featured in the film. Yes, there's a serial killer inside the body of an innocent person, but it is no less than the Gemini Killer (a potential XX century Jack the Ripper, if pop culture has its way); and... he's not alone in there, hence the title "Legion" given to the novel from which the film is adapted, a reference to Mark 5:9. In particular, there's an entity only named "the master", which appears to be someone high up in the demonic hierarchy -he has a very loud and scary roar, too. As the master remains unnamed, another good move on the writer's part, I choose to think that's it's Old Nick himself. Why settle for less? (It could be Pazuzu, of course, if one is into strict continuity).
The exorcism scene at the end struck me as beautifully shot, but at the same time ill-fitting; it was too close to pure fantasy, which broke from the previously serious and realistic look of the film. Luckily, it's revealed that it mostly happens in the head of the protagonists. (I heard on Youtube that the scene isn't in the novel and might have been added at the insistance of the producers. I suppose it's like the mandatory CGI battle in the third act of a Marvel movie).
My favourite bit? Aw, I'm old-fashioned... the few chords of "Tubular Bells" played at the beginning. It's like the James Bond theme.
All that being said, the film doesn't strike me as being that original; earlier and later films (2014's Deliver Us From Evil, for example), use the same efficient mix of realism and psychological horror; that feeling of teetering at the edge of a chasm when facing a reality you don't understand and have no control over. The Exorcist III is however very well done, and makes for great Halloween viewing.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 25, 2022 22:17:26 GMT -5
I've just watched the original Stepford Wives, having watched the disappointing remake several years ago. Good Lord, that was a spooky film, even knowing how it ends! Katharine Ross and Paula Prentiss make a great team. The setting up part of the film is perfect; it's slow, kind of boring, with nothing to really make us suspicious... which makes the story all the more convincing. I'll admit I was a bit upset by the ending, due to the main character's behaviour (in her shoes, I would have totally risked a murder one charge) but of course it's dramatically more satisfying the way it was done. Ira Levin knows how to tell a scary story, that's for sure.
Have never seen either version of The Stepford Wives, though I'm just old enough to remember some of the talk about the 1972 one at the time. I think I might try to read the Levin novel before I see the film but I'm sure I'll get to it someday.
I am planning to watch Exorcist III sometime soon, though it looks like I might not get to it until next month, so I'll wait until then before commenting.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 26, 2022 10:20:05 GMT -5
Damien: The Omen II
That film had made quite an impression on me when I first saw it (must have been 16 or so). Now, well... I re-watched The Omen a few days ago, and thought it had aged very well indeed; its sequel not so much.
It does have a powerful subject matter; we're talking about the apocalypse, after all! The actor playing Damien, the young antichrist, is well cast and suitably creepy when he wants to without overdoing it. He's quite credible in his role. However, there's only so much you can do with the script you're given.
Is Damien a kid unfortunate enough to have been born the devil's son? Or is he a beast in human shape, just faking emotion when it suits him? The conflict would have made an interesting subject for part of the movie, but it is side-stepped in favour of gruesome death scenes as if it were a hindrance. Damien is quite unaware of his origin at first, and when he discovers the truth we do indulge in the mandatory "why meeee?" scene, but within two minutes he's all like "nah, it's cool brah". Like Anakin Skywalker, he goes from decent bloke to full-on maniac in a matter of seconds with no justification.
Damien murdering his apparently beloved cousin had the potential of getting us emotionally involved, because he really seems to be hurt by the loss; I would have liked to see a little more inner conflict there. Is it a case of "gotta make sacrifices to fulfill my mission" or "damn my temper, I just killed my brother" or "can't get attached to these puny humans"? It's not made clear. Maybe a bit of all three. Whatever be the case, one scream of anguish later, it's business as usual.
The film mostly limits itself to a series of grisly deaths; anyone who could be a threat to the kid's ascension meets with a colourful and unlikely demise. Gotta give credit where credit's due: the devil sure likes to put on a show. Why get rid of mortals by giving them aneurysms when you can get them smothered in sand on an archaeological dig, crushed between two train cars or cut in half by a steel wire? It would be no fun at all!
On the other hand, despite the spectacular aspect of these deaths the film is surprisingly devoid of tension. It's a given that anyone who discovers something interesting and suddenly looks very scared about what they learned in Sunday school is about to meet the Reaper. As viewers, we can anticipate every bad thing that happens. Even the "twist" at the end, which we saw coming, like, one hour earlier.
The most unlikely thing in the movie? How nobody wonders why there's so much current under the ice of a frozen lake. I mean, it's a [i[]big[/i] lake and we're nowhere near the mouth of a river; that water should be completely still. But if you fall in a hole, youuuuuuuuuu're outta there!
I'll have a look at The Omen III shortly; that one I had seen at the movie theatre and had come out quite disappointed. We'll see how it goes this time, but as I recall it goes a bit like "a gang of monks want to kill the antichrist and meet grisly ends until someone finally manages to dispatch Damien in a way that shouldn't have worked according to the first film. Also, Jesus appears at the end".
It's Halloween season! More scary movies, please!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 26, 2022 11:24:18 GMT -5
Well, not as scary as some, but making up for it with swashbuckling action is one of Hammer's late experiments, Captain Kronos, the Vampire Hunter...
Horst Janson plays Kronos, a former guardsman whose sister became a vampire and bit him, but he survived, with enhanced abilities. He travels with friend and companion, Prof Hieronymous Grost, a hunchback, hunting down and slaying vampires, across Europe. An old friend brings him in to investigate a vampire attack in a village, where the vampire takes not blood, but life energy. Kronos also releases a gypsy woman from the public stockade, who joins the group.
The film was written and directed by Brian Clemens, writer/producer of the Avengers tv series, during its glory days. It's a nice little film that mixes elements of horror and swashbuckling adventure into something different. It's especially fun to see a monster hunter, rather than just a monster. On top of that, there is a bit of depth to the vampire hunting, as it establishes that different vampires have different weaknesses and Kronos and Grost must work out what the weakness is and exploit it to destroy the vampire. It might be a stake through the heart, it might be holy water, it might be cold steel, it might even be mirrors. The film has a nice bit of intellect, terror, and action, plus some great characters.
The one major drawback is that Horst Janson is kind of bland, as the hero, though he has moments. Thankfully, he is surrounded by a great cast, including John Carter, as Grost, john Carson, as Dr Marcus and Caroline Munro, as the gypsy girl. Kronos also carries a Japanese katana, which was something new, at the time, as well as the expected rapier. He gets a nice scene in a tavern, where he dispatches bullies set upon them by the villains, including Avengers allumnus Ian Hendry.
The movie is likely the inspiration for Hideyuki Kikuchi's novel and manga (and anime) series, Vampire Hunter D, which debuted nearly a decade later, with a similar hero, but in a future world. Stephen Somers' Van Helsing swiped a bit from it, though not successfully (or well). I think it is ripe for a remake; but, doubt modern Hollywood could deliver the intelligence. Not many Brian Clemens-es running around the town. Still, I always thought that was the element needed for a Universal Monster franchise; some monster hunters, aside from Van Helsing. Really, the Hammer takes on many of those monsters (especially their Dr Frankenstein, who makes a more interesting villain than Dracula, if you ask me) is the way to go, if they want to try it again.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 28, 2022 7:18:27 GMT -5
The Omen III : The Final Conflict
I was less disappointed this time around than when I first saw the film in 1981, but that might be only because I now knew how things would end. It remains a movie that I would not particularly recommend, except to completists or when there's nothing else to watch. There are several genuinely good things in it, yes, but the film as a whole suffers from a lack of tension pretty damning (pun intended) for a film about the antichrist.
In fact, that's the major flaw in the plot: this "horror" moie is neither scary nor mysterious. It's very superficial in its treatment. In a nutshell (forty year old spoiler, here!) Damien Thorn, the devil's son, has now grown to adulthood and is about to trigger the events mentioned in the Book of Revelations (with a generous helping of bad eschatology and even worse astronomy). He's worried about the imminent rebirth of Jesus-Christ (which is only ever called "the Nazarene" throughout the movie) and means to kill the child. Meanwhile, a bunch of monks have recovered the sacred knives of Megiddo seen in the two previous chapters, the only weapons that can kill Damien, and they mean to murder him. The whole film is about the way these two agendas evolve in parallel.
The film would be an interesting subject for a discussion on the origin of bad plot elements: are they present by accident, or because the scriptwriters and director willfully use them to convey a message?
Here are two examples of what I mean. First, the hapless monks who want to murder the antichrist are appallingly bad at their job. A few of them manage to kill each other instead of their target, and one spectacularly sets himself on fire by accident, without any apparent demonic intervention. It could just be that the plot demands a few grisly death scenes, and that the fellows are simply slated for failure to get the story going. However, it could also be a conscious choice on the part of the director: these are not trained ninjas, these are monks! What the hell would they know about murdering people? I actually prefer to see things that way, as it makes these characters more sympathetic in their bumbling hopelessness.
Second, unlike the first two Omen movies, this is not a story about how we mortals are pawns in a terrible game, puppets of an evil entity that means to damn us all to Hell. No, strangely enough, this is almost an adventure movie, one in which our point-of-view character is Damien himself; a Damien who is not the monster from the first two chapters but just a ruthless individual. He's the antichrist, no less, but he could just as well have been Ernst Stavro Bloefeld or Pablo Escobar as far as evil deeds go.
This Damien has fears (he's pretty worried about the second coming), and he clearly does not have the kind of supernatural awareness or control he seemed to manifest as a kid. He's like one of two opposing generals in a war movie; worrying like Eisenhower in The Longest Day. That makes him more relatable as an anti-hero, but I don't want the antichrist to be relatable, I want him to be scary!
It doesn't help that he now has accomplices (disciples) who fully know he is the antichrist but act like ordinary goons, corrupt bankers and paper-pushers, worrying about things like mortgages and the colour of their kid's room. I think that anyone knowingly working for the antichrist should be at least a little evil, not just reluctantly bad from time to time!
Where am I going with this? Well, the "good" side is represented by the monks. Murderous religious orders are a staple in fantasy fiction, but come on! Christianity would never condone murder, not even that of the antichrist! Christians are supposed to be loving and peaceful and to put their faith in God, not go around punching holes in people, even "bad" people! This combination of the devil's son being far less evil than expected and the angels' side being far less benign than it should be turns the conflict (the Final Conflict of the title) into something far less clear than the old Good vs Evil battle, and into something much more akin to a mere political debate. Liberals say vote for us, we're the good guys, Conservatives say no, vote for us, WE are the good guys, and here it's the same thing. Daamien makes a speech to his disciples at one point, and he sounds like he's just running for office.
And maybe that was the intent of the director; maybe that's the message he wants to send. If so it's pretty subversive, but I don't think it is pushed far enough to make for a compelling narrative. I think it's more likely that we're supposed to root for the good guys and hope for Damien's defeat because, you know, devil's son and all that. No more.
The end result is simply a battle between two groups, with one being defeated at the last moment more because the film at already run long enough than for any logical reason. (Time was, you couldn't even find out who Damien was without being decapitated by a glass pane; nowadays you can just walk up to him and stab him in the back, with the forces of Hell just going "Oh, dear, we didn't see THAT one coming".
A few notes, positive and negative:
Pro :
- I really liked the evil chapel that Damien has in his home. It has a life-size crucifix with Jesus facing the cross, which is quite a disturbingly blasphemous image (especially when Damien taunts his nemesis by putting his hands on his shoulders, as if he was about to... well, you know). Probably the most disturbing moment in the film.
- At one point, Damien goes all Herod on us and wants to get rid of the reborn Jesus by slaughtering all the babies born in England during a certain night. This slaughter of 17 babies is shown in a way that's equally chilling and tasteful (if murdering babies can be done in a tasteful way, that is). By that I mean that things are suggested rather than actually shown, which is always, always scarier. For example, during Damien's speech to his disciples, we notice two kids with bright red scarves in the crowd; later, two boy scouts wearing the exact same scarves show up at a new mother's door and say, all smiling, "good day ma'am, we're here to perform our good deed for the day". Nothing more need be said.
- Damien turns a kid into a disciple over the course of the film, mainly by acting like a father figure. That's cool, as we're left in the dark about whether he actually cares for the kid or is just using him. There's also a neat scene in which they go fox hunting, and the kid wants to be blooded with the fox's blood, as per the tradition. Unbeknownst to him, kindly Damien smears him with blood from one of the monks he's just killed during the hunt.
- The music by Jerry Goldsmith was noticeably good throughout.
Con :
- That's NOT how a conjunction works! Holy parallax, Batman, stars do NOT align exactly over a spot that you can pinpoint on our planet, and they do NOT move at several times the speed of light in the sky!
- The sacred knives of Megiddo, in the first film, had to be planted in just the right order in the body of Damien (forming a certain pattern) to do the job. Here you just need to stab him once with one of them and voilà. Continuity, please!
- The antichrist should become a temporal power and establish his kingdom on Earth before the rest can happen; those seeds had been planted in the first two films, in which he's first raised by the US ambassador to the UK, then inherits a big company. Here, as an adult, I would have expected him to be a major power broker of some kind... However, although he's on good terms with the US president, his company is closer to Archer Daniel Midlands than to Google or to Saudi Aramco, and politically he's just the ambassador to the UK (like his dad) and heads some youth committee at the UN. Not exactly the new Roman Emperor. Tim Cook wouldn't have him on speed dial.
- When it was announced that Jesus was coming back as a baby, I was surprised; even a lapsed Catholic like yours truly knows that the second coming is not a repeat of the first one, but that Jesus comes back as king of kings to put things in order and kick some 666 butt. The movie knows that too, since we're treated to a verse to that effect after an adult Jesus shows up at the end. How can it be that the antichrist himself would have forgotten that and gone looking for a baby? We know he's read the Bible, as it's shown early on.
- Yes, I know, I already explained that the monks were probably just bad at the murdering people game... but even an amateur should know that when you corner the antichrist and you have a gun, you don't advance gingerly toward him brandishing your sacred dagger: you first shoot him twice in the chest and THEN you go stab him. The bullet holes won't kill him, according to the scenario, but they're sure going to slow him down and prevent him from murdering you with his superpowers.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 28, 2022 21:20:17 GMT -5
The Omen III : The Final Conflict I was less disappointed this time around than when I first saw the film in 1981, but that might be only because I now knew how things would end. It remains a movie that I would not particularly recommend, except to completists or when there's nothing else to watch. There are several genuinely good things in it, yes, but the film as a whole suffers from a lack of tension pretty damning (pun intended) for a film about the antichrist. In fact, that's the major flaw in the plot: this "horror" moie is neither scary nor mysterious. It's very superficial in its treatment. In a nutshell (forty year old spoiler, here!) Damien Thorn, the devil's son, has now grown to adulthood and is about to trigger the events mentioned in the Book of Revelations (with a generous helping of bad eschatology and even worse astronomy). He's worried about the imminent rebirth of Jesus-Christ (which is only ever called "the Nazarene" throughout the movie) and means to kill the child. Meanwhile, a bunch of monks have recovered the sacred knives of Megiddo seen in the two previous chapters, the only weapons that can kill Damien, and they mean to murder him. The whole film is about the way these two agendas evolve in parallel. The film would be an interesting subject for a discussion on the origin of bad plot elements: are they present by accident, or because the scriptwriters and director willfully use them to convey a message? Here are two examples of what I mean. First, the hapless monks who want to murder the antichrist are appallingly bad at their job. A few of them manage to kill each other instead of their target, and one spectacularly sets himself on fire by accident, without any apparent demonic intervention. It could just be that the plot demands a few grisly death scenes, and that the fellows are simply slated for failure to get the story going. However, it could also be a conscious choice on the part of the director: these are not trained ninjas, these are monks! What the hell would they know about murdering people? I actually prefer to see things that way, as it makes these characters more sympathetic in their bumbling hopelessness. Second, unlike the first two Omen movies, this is not a story about how we mortals are pawns in a terrible game, puppets of an evil entity that means to damn us all to Hell. No, strangely enough, this is almost an adventure movie, one in which our point-of-view character is Damien himself; a Damien who is not the monster from the first two chapters but just a ruthless individual. He's the antichrist, no less, but he could just as well have been Ernst Stavro Bloefeld or Pablo Escobar as far as evil deeds go. This Damien has fears (he's pretty worried about the second coming), and he clearly does not have the kind of supernatural awareness or control he seemed to manifest as a kid. He's like one of two opposing generals in a war movie; worrying like Eisenhower in The Longest Day. That makes him more relatable as an anti-hero, but I don't want the antichrist to be relatable, I want him to be scary! It doesn't help that he now has accomplices (disciples) who fully know he is the antichrist but act like ordinary goons, corrupt bankers and paper-pushers, worrying about things like mortgages and the colour of their kid's room. I think that anyone knowingly working for the antichrist should be at least a little evil, not just reluctantly bad from time to time! Where am I going with this? Well, the "good" side is represented by the monks. Murderous religious orders are a staple in fantasy fiction, but come on! Christianity would never condone murder, not even that of the antichrist! Christians are supposed to be loving and peaceful and to put their faith in God, not go around punching holes in people, even "bad" people! This combination of the devil's son being far less evil than expected and the angels' side being far less benign than it should be turns the conflict (the Final Conflict of the title) into something far less clear than the old Good vs Evil battle, and into something much more akin to a mere political debate. Liberals say vote for us, we're the good guys, Conservatives say no, vote for us, WE are the good guys, and here it's the same thing. Daamien makes a speech to his disciples at one point, and he sounds like he's just running for office. And maybe that was the intent of the director; maybe that's the message he wants to send. If so it's pretty subversive, but I don't think it is pushed far enough to make for a compelling narrative. I think it's more likely that we're supposed to root for the good guys and hope for Damien's defeat because, you know, devil's son and all that. No more. The end result is simply a battle between two groups, with one being defeated at the last moment more because the film at already run long enough than for any logical reason. (Time was, you couldn't even find out who Damien was without being decapitated by a glass pane; nowadays you can just walk up to him and stab him in the back, with the forces of Hell just going "Oh, dear, we didn't see THAT one coming". A few notes, positive and negative: Pro : - I really liked the evil chapel that Damien has in his home. It has a life-size crucifix with Jesus facing the cross, which is quite a disturbingly blasphemous image (especially when Damien taunts his nemesis by putting his hands on his shoulders, as if he was about to... well, you know). Probably the most disturbing moment in the film. - At one point, Damien goes all Herod on us and wants to get rid of the reborn Jesus by slaughtering all the babies born in England during a certain night. This slaughter of 17 babies is shown in a way that's equally chilling and tasteful (if murdering babies can be done in a tasteful way, that is). By that I mean that things are suggested rather than actually shown, which is always, always scarier. For example, during Damien's speech to his disciples, we notice two kids with bright red scarves in the crowd; later, two boy scouts wearing the exact same scarves show up at a new mother's door and say, all smiling, "good day ma'am, we're here to perform our good deed for the day". Nothing more need be said. - Damien turns a kid into a disciple over the course of the film, mainly by acting like a father figure. That's cool, as we're left in the dark about whether he actually cares for the kid or is just using him. There's also a neat scene in which they go fox hunting, and the kid wants to be blooded with the fox's blood, as per the tradition. Unbeknownst to him, kindly Damien smears him with blood from one of the monks he's just killed during the hunt. - The music by Jerry Goldsmith was noticeably good throughout. Con : - That's NOT how a conjunction works! Holy parallax, Batman, stars do NOT align exactly over a spot that you can pinpoint on our planet, and they do NOT move at several times the speed of light in the sky! - The sacred knives of Megiddo, in the first film, had to be planted in just the right order in the body of Damien (forming a certain pattern) to do the job. Here you just need to stab him once with one of them and voilà. Continuity, please! - The antichrist should become a temporal power and establish his kingdom on Earth before the rest can happen; those seeds had been planted in the first two films, in which he's first raised by the US ambassador to the UK, then inherits a big company. Here, as an adult, I would have expected him to be a major power broker of some kind... However, although he's on good terms with the US president, his company is closer to Archer Daniel Midlands than to Google or to Saudi Aramco, and politically he's just the ambassador to the UK (like his dad) and heads some youth committee at the UN. Not exactly the new Roman Emperor. Tim Cook wouldn't have him on speed dial. - When it was announced that Jesus was coming back as a baby, I was surprised; even a lapsed Catholic like yours truly knows that the second coming is not a repeat of the first one, but that Jesus comes back as king of kings to put things in order and kick some 666 butt. The movie knows that too, since we're treated to a verse to that effect after an adult Jesus shows up at the end. How can it be that the antichrist himself would have forgotten that and gone looking for a baby? We know he's read the Bible, as it's shown early on. - Yes, I know, I already explained that the monks were probably just bad at the murdering people game... but even an amateur should know that when you corner the antichrist and you have a gun, you don't advance gingerly toward him brandishing your sacred dagger: you first shoot him twice in the chest and THEN you go stab him. The bullet holes won't kill him, according to the scenario, but they're sure going to slow him down and prevent him from murdering you with his superpowers. This is the only film of the series I have seen, not being a horror guy, so I will stick to what I can recall of it. No it isn't particularly goo or memorable, but it also isn't particularly bad. It's not overly scary, but it has unsettling moments. Sam Neil was good, though. If nothing else, it inspired Maxwell Lord, in JLI, to a certain extent. The monks are not good and I would have to think that any order dedicated to stopping an Anti-Christ would be pretty well steeped in lore and also in a sort of tradecraft/combat technique, for want of a better concept. That kind of supernatural weapon is always a bit of a logic hole, for me, in these kinds of things. Why would these daggers be able to kill him, but not other thing? Why would anything created by Man have any effect on someone beyond Man's realm? To my mind, it would seem that the more logical plot device is protecting whoever the vessel is for Jesus' coming, or however you are doing that, as there is an implied vulnerability. It would seem more logical that it would take Jesus or the equivalent to defeat the Anti-Christ. I do think the intent, in this one, was to make a political statement about what was going on in the world, more than a religious statement, as much as any statement was made. This was released at the start of the Reagan Administration, with Thatcher in power in the UK and a whole lot of push towards global capital and international conglomerates. It makes a certain sense that commerce might be a more likely battleground for an Anti-Christ, in the 80s, than politics, as commerce was superceding national barriers. I just think they didn't make it a good political statement, as the writing was never really up to it, any more than it was up to snuff for the horror or continuity. Having grown up near Decatur, IL, Archer Daniels Midland is pretty much in the camp of Evil. I would argue the point about the monks and their actions not being condoned. I don't want to get into a religious argument or offend anyone's beliefs; but, the Church, as an organization, has rationalized many actions, organizations, or events that seem contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who they are supposed to represent. These monks seem no more far-fetched, to me, than monastic orders like the Knights Templar or the Knights of St John. I think it is more reasonable that there might be factions, within the Church, who support it and those who oppose and that they would be a more fringe group, within the hierarchy. There are definite politics within the Church, as can be witnessed in some of the scandals around the Vatican Bank, the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI and even John Paul II, in regards to efforts to stifle social crusading by activist priests, particularly in Latin America and just the general politics one encounters in any hierarchal structure. Really, I find The Boys From Brazil to be a more chilling film than Omen III. The kid in that thing is creepier than Damien, too.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 29, 2022 0:30:39 GMT -5
I’ve been watching a lot of Universal horror movies this week, like some of the Frankenstein movies, and last night I watched Dracula’s Daughter.
I haven’t quite seen all the Universal horror movies, but over the years I’ve seen a lot of them. Tonight, I went online and looked at a list of all the Universal horror movies of the 1930s and 1940s.
Several years ago, I noticed the Rondo Hatton films, and I found The Brute Man and watched it. Looking at the list tonight reminded me that I have never seen House of Horrors. So I found that online and watched it. I really loved it! It’s only 64 minutes, and it’s really hard to mess it up when it’s that short. Martin Kosleck is a crazy sculptor with a cat named Pietro. He’s living in poverty and can’t sell any of his work, so he goes to kill himself in the river. The Creeper washes up. He’ll sculpt the Creeper and it will be his masterpiece, and now he has regained the will to live.
The Creeper has never had a friend before. So when Martin Kosleck gets really mad about an art critic who is really really mean (and maybe kind of deserves what happens), the Creeper seeks out the critic and snaps his neck!
And then it just kind of goes on from there, with a hotheaded painter who is suspected of being the murderer, and a wisecracking policeman, and a female art critic who loves the artist, and a dingdong blonde model, and the Folgers lady as a street walker.
The actors include Alan Napier (Alfred in the 1960s Batman show) and Virginia Grey.
I love this stuff! I thought I’d seen all the good Universal monster movies.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 6, 2022 19:34:46 GMT -5
Quatermass and the pit remains, as far as I'm concerned, a brilliant piece of science-fiction. I first watched it as a kid on a Saturday matinee, then twice online... and it never lost its impact. I'm surprised (but not ungrateful) that it didn't warrant a big budget Hollywood remake. Its core concept was unsettling, creepy and fascinating.
Never saw the original TV series, though.
|
|