We have hit the 666 hits mark for our blog! As thanks we are offering a copy of this!!
The original 1976 Omen on DVD!
What do you have to do to get this you say? It's simple! The first person to answer our skill testing questions will WIN!!!
Question 1: Other then Gregory Peck, name 2 other actors who were offered the roll of Damien's father Robert Thorn? Question 2: What are the daggers used to kill Damien called? Question 3: Damien is considered to be the what?
Submit your answer to us either by commenting to this post on the blog, or on our facebook page!
http://www.facebook.com/TheCryptDwellersScroll
We close out our focus on the Omen series with the latest in the hit and miss series. I saw this movie originally when it came out on June 6th, 2006. I also seem to remember enjoying the movie at the time. Unfortunately I can't say that this is the case anymore.
Why a remake?
Remakes are inherently lazy. Upon viewing this movie with fresh eyes, I think this has to be one of the worse offenders I have seen in the last few years, and I've seen a lot of them. In fact! Lazy screen writing calls for a lazy portion of this review. Thanks to someone with too much time on their hands, I present a side by side comparison of the original movie with it's remake:
This is way too many scenes that are almost mirror images of each other. On the flip side though, it's pretty much a no brainer why you would make this film at the time they did.
Marketing.
Films don't often have to use timing to increase their marketability, but this one was all over it. Not everyone was even as used to the constant barrage of remakes like we get now, so going to see the Omen on 6.6.6, that was an easy choice for me at least and my reviewing counterpart as well.
Anything good about this movie?
It's well cast. Nobody really appeared like the were phoning it in.
The death's aren't very original, but they look good and are somewhat gory.
The intro to the film talking about the prophecies using real life footage was well thought out.
That's about it.
What's not so good?
Mostly just the fact that this is way too similar to the original film. I believe that the screenwriters had a real opportunity with this one. Some people would likely call sacrilege if you mess with the original mythos of the film, but in this case why not try to go for the gold and give people something new to chew on. None of the sequels to the original film really got it right (in this reviewers opinion) so I think they would have benefited more from trying something new.
One thing I can't neglect to mention, is they did try one small new addition that almost every single new horror film relies on, and that is the jump scare. I can't get an exact scene, but this will give you somewhat of an idea:
This betrays what the original film was about and doesn't add anything new except to make it seem modern in all the wrong ways.
This movie also left behind one thing that was good about the original, and that had to do with the feeling from the mother of Damien feeling as if she had not given birth to that child and the hatred that existed. It's hinted at in the most minute way, but they really left that aspect of horror on the cutting room floor, and this movie suffers from it.
This film, in my opinion was like a one shot deal - you were going to get those who were going to see it on the first day, and then after that it was going to fall flat. This movie was an absolute chore to watch, even by remake standards.
You would do yourself no favor by watching this, you would likely be better off cleaning your house. Alternatively, you could make a deal with the devil and ask that the next time they do this, they try a little harder and make something that wasn't likely to end up in the bargain bin after a month of release.
So as we continue along with the "Omen" series and on top of that in the wacky order its been. Here we have the second installment, Don Taylor's "Damien: Omen II". This movie comes two years after the original and takes place seven years after the events of "The Omen" Damien has become a young adolescent and now lives with his aunt, uncle and cousin Mark. Now enrolled in military school Damien is on his way through the path that will eventually lead him to the top of both Thorn industries as well as becoming the antichrist he is meant to become. He has slowly started to realize his powers, though yet still struggles to come to terms with who he is.
Jerry Goldsmith returns to do the score for this movie, most of the music being from the first, although there are a few pieces that are brought in new. The arrangement of the music in this film is once again done very well, it definitely helps set the dark evil atmosphere of the movie and much like its predecessor carries a lot of the suspense in the film.
The acting in this movie is not great but its not really bad either. William Holden's character of Richard Thorn is almost exactly like Gregory Peck's character of Robert. Richard is Roberts brother so obviously they do want to draw the similarities together to make it believable, but if you didn't know any better, you'd think they were the same. The characters are very much the same and play a very similar role. Now some might think that it makes Holden's character a bit stock like because there isn't much added but, he performs it very well and like Peck's character, you feel for him and you want him to succeed. Also Damien's cousin Mark is a good addition in this film, Damien's relationship with Mark is very much a strong one. He treats him like a brother and the development between the two is done really well, because it also shows off more of Damien's humanity which is something the first film doesn't really portray as much. Jonathan Scott Taylor the actor who plays Damien himself does a good job as well. Not that trying to play a kid who's evil is all that difficult, but he doesn't ruin it, so that is good.
There are two characters in the film that are a little confusing. One which is Sergeant Neff who is played by a younger looking Lance Henriksen( Alien, Mass Effect) and the other who is Paul Buher who is played by Robert Foxworth(Syriana, Transformers) These 2 characters both play an influential role to Damien but for reasons unknown they seem to already know he's the antichrist. They make reference to his destiny and how he's going to be important in the world but nothing really explains how this is known, so it leaves you scratching your head a little.
The best part I like about this film are the death scenes. This movie for its time displays some pretty graphic scenes and it definitely puts this movie over the edge in terms of horror. I won't go into detail because I don't want to spoil it, but here is a clip of one of such scenes.
Is the movie scary? Not really, but it is pretty hefty with the suspense and horror. For a movie made in 1978 it does a good job.
How does it hold up as a sequel? Well in the horror genre sequels aren't always respected very well, mostly cause a lot of sequels are done by different directors then the originals and lots of alterations with casting and crew. This movie has all of these yet I definitely think this movie deserves respect. William Holden is not Gregory Peck and Don Taylor is not Richard Donner but, this sequel stays true to the story and true to its predecessor. The film style is very much the same and honestly I don't think you'd be able to tell that its not the same crew because I'd say they must have studied the first one very closely.
Is it worth watching? Absolutely! I came into watching this series thinking The first Omen is the only good one out of the batch and that I was just going to spend my time insulting the others. Well if you read the review to "Omen IV" That's partially true, however the original trilogy is quite phenomenal in my mind, so please watch both the second and the third.
I knew going into this film, that I was heading for some stormy waters. The first thing that concerned me is that I was well aware of the first movie and it's two sequels, but only after some digging did I even really find this... Thing. Also, based on history - a 4th movie in a series is bound to be bad, and this one is not only no exception - It re-writes the book on being a bad sequ...rema... Whatever you want to call this thing.
Story?
Kind of a pseudo remake here in the sense that it follows the plot of the first one except this time it's a girl. It turns out she knows very early on what she is capable of, the reason for this I shall not reveal just in case you choose to watch this thing. Many random deaths occur that all lead to an ending that is so unsatisfying I almost felt like I could throw up.
So whats wrong?
EVERYTHING.
Problem 1: This was a made for TV movie. How on earth are you supposed to make a movie that could have any tie to the original if it's made for TV? Cut out any gore, the awesome death scenes, and course language, suggestive scenes etc. etc. and you are left with this shallow husk of a movie Problem 2: The acting. Did anyone even want to make this thing? I found myself wondering if peoples payment for making this film was that their family members got to live or something after being trapped in Fox's cavernous basement. Calling the acting Dog Shit is being way too nice.
Problem 3: The musical score. Yes, when they use the original music from the Omen, it brought back fond memories of a movie much scarier than this absolute garbage. The other times however, they used almost a playful soundtrack with a lot of high notes. This soundtrack was not only not scary - it was confusing. Based on the soundtrack alone and what it was suggesting, I think they could have gone with a title for this movie like...
Problem Child 3: Satan Takes a Holiday Is there any reason to watch this?
No.
In Fact! If someone even suggests that you watch this, and they are serious - You may want to use corrective action on this person. Now i'm not advocating any physical harm, but you may have to ask if that person needs someone to sit beside them.
You tell them you don't want to watch this movie and you are disappointed they would even ask. You could even call it treason of some sort.
Here is a good example of what I'm referring to with the soundtrack/scenes
Yes, you probably have to go wash your eyes out. That's fine.
What should I take away from this review?
There was a great tagline on the first movies poster "You have been warned"
The tagline for this movie should have been "We warned you"
It is with great pleasure that I give this movie the Scroll's lowest rating to date:
I was added as a contributor a while ago, but haven't had the time to...contribute. Sorry guys! So here goes!
Got my grubby little hands on Dethklok's Dethalbum III.
(Album image from Wikipedia)
What can I say, another totally metal album just as metal as The Dethalbum and Dethalbum II. This album contains all songs from the most recent season in their completeness as opposed to the short clips played during gore scenes and just plain awesomeness.
A few minor complaints...the absence of Dethklok's banter between each other like in The Dethalbum's Deluxe Edition's "Dethklok Gets in Tune" or "Murdertrain a Comin'". I personally would've liked another song sung by Pickles or Dr. Rockzo at least as a bonus song. Dethalbum III is missing never heard songs that the previous albums debuted on the respective albums instead of the show (Better Metal Snake, The Lost Vikings, Murmaider II: The Water God) .
Favorite song? There's no comparison to my favorites from the other albums (Almost every song from The Dethalbum and Bloodlines from Dethalbum II). Dethalbum III songs are all solid, but I don't think I can pick a favorite just yet. I definitely would've liked to have seen a Murmaider III.
Overall, if you're a fan of Metalocalypse this is a must have. Support Dethklok and buy the album so that they can make more for us!
Before watching this film again, which I had not seen since I was very young, I found myself thinking of several questions. How does this film hold up now? Is the film as scary as I remember? Can they fit enough content into the just under 2 hour running time? How much better is this than the re-make?
So, how does this film hold up? Surprisingly well! There are two things that stood out to me that need to be mentioned. One is the editing, i'm a real stickler for good editing, and this film nails it - even by current standards. Of specific note, I really enjoyed how they show Damien aging at around the 10 minute mark through a series of pictures, it stands out in this film because it gives almost a false hope and doesn't really match what this story is about. The second thing about this film that makes it a real standout is the score. There has been plenty written about what the score did to this film, so without repeating anyone who came before me, I mostly want to say that you simply don't have scores written like this anymore. When you find yourself questioning "Why can't they make them the way they used to?" This is one of the reasons.
Is this film as scary as I remember? Scary? Not really. It is somewhat intense at times. A scene I was looking very forward to and surprisingly could remember very well, was this one.
Personally for me, when I think about churches - this is what I think about. I thought about it when I was young, and I think about it now. This is truly the mark of an effective film to have a long lasting effect like that. The other scenes that really lend to any scariness (at least by today's standards) are the scenes with the dog's. These dog's are damn menacing
Yes, that picture looks pretty fake - but in the scenes where they don't, they are used to great effect. I do believe that if you were the religious sort, and the particular type that believes in the Antichrist - this movie could give "scary" a whole new meaning. For me, it was a good bit of nostalgia.
How about the running time? As I mentioned before about the editing - this film couldn't have been paced much better. Considering this is less than 2 hours, this film really gets to the point quick, and makes just about every scene count. At no point did I find myself with my mind wandering or looking at other things while taking notes on the movie. I would like to see some more story about the Antichrist as it is one of my favorite, but lesser used horror movie staples.
Better than the remake? Pretty easy to say yes to that. As far as remakes go, I liked it quite a bit. There are so many things about this film though that you will never match, such as... -The Poster: I think that is one of the best taglines I have seen on a poster. The way the wolf is jumping out of Damien, the way the 6's appear in the O. If only they could have posters like that these days -The Score: Subtle when it needs to be, jarring at other times, it hits all the right notes and this film would be much lesser without it. -The Acting: I'm sure there is a story behind it somewhere, but how they came to casting Gregory Peck (aside from who turned it down) is crazy, but an interesting choice. The Priest and the photographer characters were also well cast and do a lot to add to the movie. The remake wasn't really a slouch either, but Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles don't quite equal Gregory Peck, even in a slightly wooden performance. -The Horror Stories/Myths: Planes getting struck by lightning, Decapitations, Plane Crashes... You can't buy (Nor do you probably want to) that kind of marketing, but it's the sort of thing that elevates this film to a higher level than it's peers.
Some final thoughts? As we keep running through the Omen films here at the scroll, it's pretty easy to say that this film is the best of the bunch. It had a huge influence on the genre, and it's a real surprise that this premise hasn't been overused and copied. If we had as many of these as we do exorcist films, I could see this being a whole different conversation. Look for reviews of films 2 and 4 to follow as well as the books when we start some book reviews. If you haven't done so in a while - make a point of re-visiting this film, you'll be glad you did! 5 Rottweilers out of 5
Fresh off the review grill we have Graham Baker's "Omen III:Final Conflict" This movie stars Sam Neill(Jurassic Park, In the Mouth of Madness) as the evil Antichrist Damien Thorn. Damien now in his early 30's is on his way to world domination, owning a huge multinational company and being appointed as Ambassador to Great Britain. If you're familiar with the Omen series and have seen the first 2 then one assumes you should be right up to speed. I myself have yet to see the second, so there might be a review for that one later down the road. Anyways I have seen the first one and have a good general idea as to how the "Antichrist" lore plays out so if you have seen the first one or have a rough idea then it shouldn't be too confusing. So meanwhile Damien is rising through the world economically and socially, he's also having to stave off these seven disciples of light who are trying to bring about the second coming of Christ. Cause you know it wouldn't be a final conflict without the Antichrist and the regular Christ going toe to toe.
To elaborate more on the conflict itself, Damien grows weaker as the birth of the Christ becomes nearer and while he is hell bent on stopping it, the seven disciples who are trying to bring it about are trying to assassinate Damien at the same time. It's through this conflict that Damien's villainy is really shown and much like in the first film his power of seductive persuasion and intimidation really comes forth.
Now as corny as that plot may sound to some, I actually found it pretty cool and it does actually make sense. Part of what I enjoyed about the plot is that its stress of evil is done really well and while that from what seems fantastical from a religious point of view, its not hard to believe that there are people out there with characteristics of Damien's hate. Sam Neill also does a very good job portraying the evil one. There is a scene in the movie where he has a monologue and he is cursing Nazarene, there is no sound other then him speaking and the atmosphere is very dark. It helps set a really good tone. This monologue is also featured in a song called "Damien" by the band Iced Earth.
Though Damien is the Antichrist, there is also a partial romantic subplot within this film and though it doesn't last it now makes the task of killing Damien much harder.
As for negative parts in this movie, the overall film falls a little flat in terms of horror, there are certain specific scenes that deliver well but as a whole it can be a bit bland. Part of it being because the first half of the movie is really slow and doesn't really build too well. If you can make it past the first 35-40 mins of the movie that's where it picks up but its getting to that point that is the trouble. There is a pretty good death scene in the first 10 mins but there isn't much building around it, or after it to really help carry the suspense forward. The visual quality of this film itself is done quite well and reflects very much to the first one. As the third part of a trilogy this movie does well to wrap up the conflict and plot. Everything is drawn to its close in this film and though it's not as good as the first "Omen" it is a far better sequel then a lot of other horror movie franchises and definitely worth the viewers time.
It is with that review I give Omen III: Final Conflict 666/5
And here we have the trailer:
Conventional wisdom suggests that watching Exorcist 2 is a big waste of time. Eventually, some people just have to forgo the reviews and see things for themselves. Much to my surprise, this is one time when I am glad I chose to do this.
This film has AT LEAST one major thing working against it, and that is that it's attached to the original film. It probably does not matter what film this would be, as long as it has "EXORCIST" attached to it - it's doomed for failure. Lets look at some other issues this film has:
The acting: The casting choices for this film are completely fine. Linda Blair was still a fine young actress at this point, and you would think Richard Burton would deliver a good performance. I believe the directing of the actors leaves a lot to be desired, and the script certainly didn't help either
The editing: This really bugged me during this film. In the hands of a more skilled director - I think this is where the film could have become something more than it is. There are several sequences where I feel like the film is trying to do something different and interesting. Whether it's flying on the wings of a locust or it's the expertly crafted dream/hypnotized sequences (the one thing this film does exceptionally well) I feel like the director couldn't quite figure out how to make it work... Almost like he was holding back in a way. If this film would have been handled by someone who might have embraced the more bizarre aspects of the film, I think it could have made this a more interesting picture.
The music: Another failure here, the sounds is weird and has too much tribal throat singing and screaming in it. The sounds of the locusts is frequent and does it's job, but other than that, it doesn't really help set a mood properly like the first film does.
Why bother? As I said before, I like what they TRIED to do with some of the sequences, I just wish they would have gone all in and changed the music a bit and maybe spent a bit more time in the editing room to make it more visceral. I feel like you can go one of two ways - Have dream sequences make sense or have it be completely fantastical. They went for the middle ground in this movie which doesn't work, but I give them credit for the attempt. I also really liked their use of "science" in this movie. Their hypnotize machine concept is interesting. It comes off hokey by today's standards, but it is one thing in this film that really does set a mood and build some tension.
Closing thoughts: My main thing with this movie is watch it if it's convenient. Don't go out of your way and certainly don't slap someone if they say "Hey, want to watch the second Exorcist movie?". You might just see something you like. I wouldn't even be opposed if they tried to give this movie another shot using modern technology and a crazier director. Had David Lynch had the reigns on something like this (Eraserhead came out the same year) we could have had a completely different movie and one that would have lived up the legacy a bit more like Exorcist III.
Also please note: This movie isn't scary - not in the least, nothing at all will give you nightmares in this film. It's more interesting than scary as it tries to add to the original.
I'm giving Exorcist II: The Heretic, 2 Pazuzu's out of 5.
Here is the trailer:
(It kind of gives you an idea of how bad the music is)
We take a break from our regularly scheduled programming to present you with some sci-fi/horror.
First i'd like to start by saying this is the best abduction movie I have ever seen. Admittedly, I have not seen a whole bunch, but this also isn't my first time around - and I really liked what this movie presented. I'd also like to say that "Based on a true story" pretty much up's the scare factor by 5 almost immediately for this reviewer.
Quick story summary: Travis Walton and 4 co-workers go into the mountains to work on a job. While on their way back, they see a beam of light in the trees where they are driving. Travis decides he is going to go out for a closer look and gets blasted by the beam of light and his co-workers assume the worst and leave him for dead. When they return to find him, he is gone. The search goes on and his co-workers are held for murder charges. After several days and the co-workers all passing lie detector tests, Travis comes back and matches the story with his co-workers. He was never proven wrong.
Now a note on that last line. After some research there are some people who think this is an absolute and well constructed hoax, I however do not fall in that camp which gives the movie and the book it's based on a lot more of a "creepy" factor. This coming from a guy who does not traditionally believe in alien abduction.
The acting in this film is above average. Robert Patrick (Terminator 2) does a good job playing Travis' best friend and convey's a believable amount of emotion when he is trying to describe the unbelievable. Craig Sheffer and D.B Sweeney, the other two notables do the same to give this story a way to suspend disbelief.
So, onto the horror aspect of this film.
The abduction sequence is awesome in the most terrifying way.
Behold!
The scene itself is unfortunately very short, and is by far the only "scary" sequence in the film. What the scene lacks in length though, it makes up for with a sheer visceral presentation. The editing is quick and disorienting. Not in a way that would make you sick though, just in a way that convey's the frantic nature and the intensity of the situation.
This film was recommended before I had watched it, and It held up it's end of the bargain. I have no hesitation recommending this film, especially if you are a fan of the alien abduction genre. One complaint might be the ending, it definitely could have used some work as it ends in a weird place.
Two versions of this movie exist. The link above is for the remake, which I haven't ever been able to watch. Do yourself a favour and find the one with Walter Matthau and Henry Fonda from 1964. It begins at a dinner party, a well dressed consultant speculating on 60 versus 100 million dead theorizes nuclear war survivors being a group of prison convicts versus file clerks.Who will win? All in good fun he says, but for him, merely a lie be told to the unaware. Later on the drive home he takes a woman to the brink of orgasm by describing her armageddon fantasy to her. The loss of this scene in the remake means it just doesn't work for me, extra points if you can guess why it was cut. Each scene in the movie exists to forward an idea, each one builds on the other. People and their perspectives of how they deal with what turns out to be a very bad day. The movie works slowly, but builds itself by generating real emotion to what is happening and who it is happening to. The central theme of this movie is the danger of the terrible accident sparking the nuclear war, but around this core the tapestry of issues woven by the story are complex and emotional, and truly about the people within it.
This movie offers a great deal of deliberation and philosophy, its slow moving. Yet that's the essential beauty of the whole story, the exposition is meant to make these people more than just soldiers or statesmen. Rather they are real people faced with the moment of agonizing and horrible choices which they have talked about for so long, only to be reduced by the moment to silence, or brief moments of connection with strangers who mere hours before were simply enemies. However if I have anything to say about this movie, it is that its ending is a happy one. By this I mean you'll be happy that it's over so you can go outside, read a book, see a friend, play music or watch the way water boils. Anything to remind yourself that it's just a movie.
I have tried several times to start how to review this movie. Each time I put it on for ten or fifteen minutes at a time and watch. Then I have to stop writing, or watching and do something else. This movie is so painful and depressing, but it is by far the best movie about nuclear war. You can think of James and Hilda Bloggs as mere simpletons. But you begin to play with the reflections, and all of the sudden you realize these are not hopeless people, but a representation of all of us, or of people you know and loved. I always see them as a mixture of my grandparents. You realize for people trapped in the insanity of nuclear horror only sympathy or pain can be felt. That this is not a noble ending, but a brutal one, or an agonizing one.
Ultimately, these kind and simple people should not have to ever live in a world where something so mind defying and utterly violent as nuclear weapons exists. If Fail Safe was the statesman's struggle to define a world of nuclear war, and the terrors it brings this is the attempt from the rest of us. The theme of both movies is a quiet almost prayerful plea, an admission that we are not ready to handle or control these forces. That they may spiral out of control all too quickly, and leave us in a strange gulf where we no longer know how to live.
I couldn't end this review without one final thought. HP Lovecraft in his genius envisioned a terrifying power called Azathoth, a nuclear chaos demon god which spawned all the other horrors of his pantheon. The demon god which devours all at the end within the maw of madness. Devouring to the sound of horrible piping flutes. Flutes which drive those who hear them mad. As much as we know the horror which full scale nuclear war would unleash, the millions dead, the planet destroyed. Another part of us has a strange lust for it. The way it would feel, the power we'd have if we were the ones choosing to decide when the world would die. After all the joy of power in possessing an ultimate weapon is in its use. We as human beings are not beyond this. I've linked one of the better articles on nuclear war below however my own reaction to one paragraph is what interests and scares me personally.
I had seen some of the smaller bombs myself, H-bombs with an explosive yield of 1.1 megatons each—equivalent to 1.1 million tons of high explosive, each bomb half the total explosive power of all the bombs of World War II combined. I saw them slung under single-pilot F-100 fighter-bombers on alert at Kadena Air Base on Okinawa, ready to take off on 10 minutes’ notice. On one occasion I had laid my hand on one of these, not yet loaded on a plane. On a cool day, the smooth metallic surface of the bomb was warm from the radiation within: a bodylike warmth.
My only thought to this is: I want to touch a nuclear weapon too!
When I was young my parents and I were travelling in North Dakota near the air force base at Minot. My father was slowing down as each B-52 bomber roared overhead on takeoff. Craning his head for a view of the gigantic war machine as it flew off towards its failsafe point, or armageddon. As we drove my mother was more interested in what was in the farmer's fields. Missile silos, they are pretty much spaced as evenly as houses there. Her demeanour was that of a pacifist inspecting a division of soldiers, flaming swords in hand, singing Christian old time revival songs: "Bringing in the sheaves! Bringing in the sheaves! We shall come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves!"
Later on in life I learned the Hopi have a lovely name for nuclear weapons, the Gourd of Ashes. Poignant and poetic, describing so much of their ability in so little words. Much later in life I was writing this article, this very sentence actually I asked my Dad about that day near Minot and asked him what he would have done if as we drove past those white silos they opened and launched their beautiful arcing missiles until all we could hear was the roar of the rockets as they carried the death of millions encased within them. My Dad was laughing as he answered, perhaps because he was seriously answering. "I would have pulled over, got out of the van and made love to your mother." I was suitably horrified but realized, that considering we'd probably die minutes later, it would seem infinitely preferable to living at that point. My father, earning the distinction as one of the only beings which have made me wish for nuclear annihilation.
A part of me is absolutely fascinated by it, after all. Not about my parents having sex, but nuclear war. For a civilization based on the supposed pillars of reason and rationality, the act of killing one's own species is an act one has to be completely rational, or completely mad to contemplate. So if your like me and enjoy putting on the atomic thinking cap, come enjoy the four best nuclear war films. After all if you can't drop the bomb, you might as well watch others do it.
When the United States Air Force decides to give you a vision of nuclear war from the 1950's as a nuclear war lover, you quickly press play and ignore all other needs. From the cool and collected narrator we learn that no one wins in a nuclear war, but that success is possible. What this film lacks in production values and plotline, it makes up for in general eerie quality of honesty and optimism that these men take with them into the holocaust. There's a faith in the technology and systems of destruction which shines through, no one panics, no one questions. A study in horror which is horrifying because there seems to be an absence of the reaction to the horrific. It would be easy to make fun of this film, but to do so misses the point of the ideas it presents, and the ideals it serves. A wiser soul then me once wrote "A war story is never about war" which means its about the people telling it, what they have to say and what they see. Keep that in mind when you see this movie. There's where the real horror is.
Note the relaxed way the casualties from civilian targets are announced, how the cost in lives is eclipsed by what really matters, the loss of aircraft and pilots. We may not understand what happens after the war begins, but we know these are the kind of men who will lead us into that war. This is the essential quality of humans which allows us to be the fountain of horrors, our ability to become that person who will calmly destroy a city, disconnected from the effect, doing our duty and following orders.
If The Power Of Decision had an ugly twin that it never wanted you to see, this movie is it. This film provides a different set of facts and figures to be calculated, and aims at the gut with the whole effort of its blow. If you had to give one movie to a person to have them understand the full flowering of horror that nuclear war represents for a society and its structures of order you`d have to seriously consider The War Game as the ultimate movie. Throughout the movie, when facing the sheer weight of facts and figures it provides, is an understated point, given in a typically British way that any nuclear exchange would irreparably devastate the lives of millions and end the world as we once knew it forever. It makes this point without seeking to preach it, or hand it to you on a platter. It merely opens the door to the abyss and through the assistance of dramatized moments, lets your mind explore the truth of what these weapons can do.
However, that being said, you will at times in this movie begin to, depending on your temperment, laugh uncontrollably or gasp in abject horror as the dramatic scenes are often cut by some of the most poignant counterpoint commentary courtesy of a black screen with white text that will ever be paired with such images. Remember, according to the Vatican nuclear bombs which are clean and of a good family the faithful must learn to live with, but you don`t need to love the bomb. Sounds like the most sensible advice I`ve heard, what if you really love the bomb though? Does the Church approve of a man or woman marrying a nuclear bomb? Ask your pastor these important questions.
There are many movies about exorcism and very many of them will appear very similar. Generally I'd say movies that take on this type of theme, are driving themselves heavily on the shock value and using it to pull their viewers in. William Brent Bell's "The Devil Inside" is a prime example of that, but it also delves deep into religion and science and does a great job of expressing realism.
The Devil Inside is afictional documentary inspired by true events based on exorcism. It centers around Isabella Rossi who's mother was committed to a sanitarium in Rome after she was convicted of killing three members of clergy, while they were trying to exorcise her back in 1989. After 20 years Isabella travels to Rome to reunite with her mother, as well as create a documentary behind the study of exorcism. After spending some time in Rome she meets two young priests David and Ben, who are attending a school where priests are trained in the theory behind exorcism and mental illness. After allowing her to sit in on one of their sessions with a possessed young teenager, Isabella enlists the aid of both David and Ben to attempt to exorcise her mother and cure her of her demonic essence.
I highly recommend this movie to both horror enthusiasts and those who also like to delve into the satanic side as well. That being said apparently the Vatican did not endorse this movie(go figure) so if you're really religious then this movie might shock and appall you. Though if you've seen "The Exorcist" and didn't have a cow then you'll manage. What I really like about this movie though, is that it keeps you on edge throughout the whole film.With Most documentaries you'd expect there to be some slow parts, where it sort of brings you back to earth. This movie though rarely does that and given how intense it gets at times, you might like that little bit of a breather. Fans of the "Paranormal Activity" series will know what I mean and I think would like this movie.
The other interesting thing is that while this movie is heavily religious based(I'm not religious at all) it doesn't really bore you, or put you off it. If you're like myself, you definitely need to suspend your beliefs, for many people that could be by a lot, but once again its a movie, not reality so if you're that critical then don't watch this. It's only 83 minutes which I'd say is a good length because it keeps you going long enough to enjoy it, but not so long that it starts to get to be too much. The effects in this film and the way it was shot were done really well.... The scenes in which they show the exorcisms are done superbly, they look very real and if you find the sounds of popping bones makes you shudder then this will make you go "ouch". This film's budget was estimated just over the million mark, but my guess would be most of that cost would have been geared towards the travelling and filming in Europe, because there's not really any huge movie magic going on and it looks pretty realistic.
My only complaint throughout this movie is that the audio is sometimes a bit on the low side. There were times where I really had to crank my speakers because the talking would get a bit quiet. That being said though it doesn't really take away from the movie and I know that when you do film a movie like this, there are bound to be some parts that may sound a little less audible then others.
I streamed this movie off Netflix so you can go check it out there, or if you are in a small town that maybe still has video stores, I'd strongly recommend giving this a rent. Either way check it out!
The Entity is a film by Sidney J. Furie, fictionalizing true events of a paranormal activity. The movie stars Barbara Hershey(Once Upon a Time, Black Swan) who portrays Carla Moran, a single mother who's plagued by a horny sex ghost, who's hellbent on nailing her into oblivion......I'm not even joking.
The best way I could describe this movie would be "horrific ghost porn". Without rhyme or reason this malevolent force starts attacking Carla and forcing itself upon her, at first it seems to want to kill her and then we are shown this entity has other plans.
Within the first 10 minutes of this movie, you get an idea of where its going. One of the things right from the get go I liked about this movie was the music. It's dark and haunting and sets a really good mood. From the introduction to the encounters with the "Entity" the tone is addressed well.
While watching this movie the way the film was shot, reminded me a lot of John Carpenter's "Halloween". There are a lot of scenes with shifty cam shots and scenes where the camera is outside the scene panning in on the characters. It makes it appear as if the "Entity" itself is watching Carla. It's a very unique style of filming for its time and helps to build suspense. Speaking of unique for its time, some of the effects used in this movie are also quite impressive.
Without spoiling too much detail, there is an erotic scene in which Hershey is in bed and she is being pleased by the demonic force and you can actually see where she's being touched, without being touched.... Yeah that's right.
Now unfortunately there was a lot I didn't like about this movie. Right from the first encounter with the force, I was in a state of confusion which lasted throughout most of the movie. Where did this thing come from? Why is it only coming after her? What is the tie in with both of them? It's never really explained, at least not in a way that I think a casual viewer would really understand. To be fair, you have to suspend belief a fair bit as is and something like this can't really be explained, but it doesn't really help carry the plot. I mean yeah Barbara Hershey is really attractive in this film and this ghost must have seen her walking down the street with her kids and was like " boooooooo she's a hot momma! I'm gonna use my sex ghost powers on her and make her my bitch!"
I mean who knows, your guess is as good as mine. Another thing that disappointed me was, as much as the music and filming style helped build suspense and make the mood eerie, when it came to the attacks themselves, I found myself laughing a couple times because they weren't all that suspenseful and at times looked kind of silly. In particular, the very first time the entity comes after Carla in the first few minutes of the movie. Also there's a scene in the bathroom that also didn't scare me or put me on edge, as much as it did kinda make me go " wow she's really getting it ". I felt myself wanting to hit the fast forward button a few times, to see if I could get to any scenes that opened my eyes, but I found I wasn't really into the story. As her encounters progressively get worse, she attempts to seek help from a psychiatrist and then later on parapsychologists and I found by that point I really started to lose interest. The Psychiatrist Dr Sniderman was a good character. He tries to make Carla rationalize her encounters as delusions and suggests that if she can realize it as such then she will stop having them.
On the other side, the parapsychologists are working against him and trying to prove this entity is as real as it seems. If there is any hidden meaning this film is trying to promote, it would be science vs the paranormal. However in this movie I found this is where it started to get boring and at times got more confusing.
If you're a fan of movies like "Poltergeist" and "Halloween" You might be interested in this movie. I know people who have seen it and liked it a fair bit, so you may not have the same outlook as I have. However my personal opinion is that if you don't see this movie, you're not missing much and to be honest I think "Poltergeist" is way better in showcasing the paranormal then what this one did, but at the same time........ Horrific Ghost Porn...
