In-Depth Movie Reviews & High Quality Trailers

Posts tagged “satan

The Omen (2006)

So, thirty years later comes the remake which had one hell of powerful marketing campaign.  Script wise, the film is practically a carbon copy, but does have a few minor alterations and better polished quality.  It’s not a perfect film, but if my opinions of the original weren’t polarizing enough, I can tell you that I liked this 2006 film more in the first fifteen minutes than I did the whole of the 1976 version.

When a Vatican observatory priest sees the appearance of a prophesized comet, the Church is sure that it confirms the eve of the Armageddon.  Meanwhile, the United States President’s godson Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) is informed in the maternity in Rome that his wife Katherine (Julia Stiles) has just lost her baby, and she had troubles with her uterus and would not have another pregnancy.  Father Spiletto (Giovanni Lombardo Radice) suggests Robert take another newborn child, who lost his mother, as his own.  Robert accepts the child and gives him the name of Damien.  After a tragic accident, Robert is promoted to U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, but years later, bizarre occurrences begin to center around Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick).  When his nanny commits suicide at his birthday party, a substitute, Mrs. Baylock (Mia Farrow), comes to work and live with the family, but Katherine has come to realize that Damien is evil.  Meanwhile, Robert is contacted by Father Brennan (Pete Postlethwaite), who tells him that Damien is the son of Devil.  Soon after, photographer Keith Jennings (David Thewlis) shows evidence to Robert that confirm Brennan’s prophetic statements.  Thus, they commit themselves to a journey to discover the truth about Damien, and how to ultimately stop him.

What so immediately engaged me into this remake more than the original is the depth of real emotion and humanity in the performances.  I really do hold Liev Schreiber in high regard.  I think he’s really a fantastic actor with a fine range of talent.  I love that you can see the deep concern he has for his adopted son, but also, the internal conflict he has over the secrets he hides from everyone about Damien.  That knowledge is always in the back of his head, and builds up a sense of guilt as the foretelling words of Father Brennan become truth.  While Schreiber surely doesn’t have the dramatic presence of Gregory Peck, Liev brings something more valuable with that depth of emotion and relatable humanity.  He feels like a man with realistic struggles that define him as a conflicted, sympathetic person who only wished to bring happiness to his family, but brought evil in instead.

This remake wisely strengthens Katherine Thorn’s role.  She is given so much more emotional turmoil to grapple with over her fears about Damien.  Julia Stiles does a hell of a fine job.  Where Lee Remick left me with nothing to say about her performance, Stiles brings a strong breadth of traumatic emotion.  You can feel her pain seep through the screen with a lot of sorrow.  The filmmakers added in a series of surreal and startling dreams for her which are very foreboding as manifestations of her fear.  She is so afraid that there is something grossly wrong with Damien that the thought of this child being born from her psychologically and emotionally damages her.  This creates further turmoil for Robert who does not know how to tell her the truth without damaging her or their marriage further.

The late and very great Pete Postlethwaite does a far more realistic job as Father Brennan.  Instead of coming off as a frayed crazy man, he shows the immense fear and dread in the character.  He’s very much a prophet of doom who sells that sense of doom with every fiber of his terrified being.  It’s not a big splashy performance, but more subtle and foreboding.

I also enjoyed Mia Farrow’s different take on Mrs. Baylock.  She’s very kindly and unassuming, but is actually so nice to the point where it seems like a mentally unhinged disorder.  She makes the character the perfect nanny, to a fault.  Farrow is much more subtle in how she plays the role, making her evil nature less obvious and more subversive.  The performances of both Mia Farrow and Billie Whitelaw are excellent in this role in their respective films, and both work equally as well on different levels.

Unfortunately, David Thewlis’ turn as Keith Jennings is about average.  It’s nothing tremendous, but it services the film decently enough.  Between Thewlis and David Warner in this role, I would certainly choose the latter, even with that bad 1970s hair style he had.  On the whole, the acting in the remake is more dimensional and real instead of the more surface level performances of the original.  With a film that’s more heavy on ideas than plot, it is ultimately the performances which have to carry the film, and convince the audience of the validity of everything that is occurring.

On the down side, it is rather distracting how much of the dialogue is taken verbatim from the 1976 original.  I honestly would’ve preferred if the screenwriter freshened it up a little.  You can still stay true to the spirit of the original dialogue without making radical changes.  Say the same thing in a different way is all I suggest.  In fact, this screenplay differed so little from that of the original film, Dan McDermott was not awarded a writing credit by the Writer’s Guild of America for his work on the remake’s script.

One significant addition to this remake that I felt was very effective were the Vatican scenes.  There, a Cardinal recites lines from a prophecy which correlate with real world horrific events.  These events foretell the coming of the son of the Devil.  I would say it’s more than a little controversial to use images of 9/11 to this effect, but one cannot deny the weight those images hold.  It’s a very good sequence that really sets up an ominous feeling that something terribly evil is coming, and it is bookended at the film’s conclusion.

I also like that a scene I felt was poorly handled in the original, where Damien disappears on the Thorns as they take a walk, is revamped into a much more effective scene here.  This time, Katherine pushing Damien on a swing set when she gets pulled away by a cell phone call.  When she turns around a moment later, Damien is suddenly gone, and she realistically panics.  It’s actually Damien playing a mischievous prank on his mom, one seems to take a little pleasure in frightening her with.  It’s a much more realistic and tonally appropriate scene that also strongly establishes Katherine’s deep, motherly concern for him.  The music here appropriately goes for a tone of dread as opposed to the original’s melodramatic punctuation.

This remake of The Omen does look absolutely gorgeous using a rich but restrained color pallet of ambers, blues, and greens.  That coupled with some excellent, shadowy lighting creates a very moody visual atmosphere.  While it might look a little too polished at times, on the whole, it’s a very well shot film.  Director John Moore also made vibrant use of the color red as a signal of supernatural events which you can take or leave at your discretion.  It’s artistic symbolism which I am generally indifferent about.

The score by Marco Beltrami might not be iconic or especially memorable, but it is entirely new and original.  He goes for a more traditional score that enhances mood and emotion instead of bludgeoning you with bombastic music cues.  It highlights the horror very effectively, and solidly supports the various subtle tones of the film.  It is a very good piece of scoring by Beltrami which works immensely better than the overbearing Jerry Goldsmith score for Richard Donner’s original film.  While Goldsmith’s would probably be a rousing listen on its own, apart from the film, Beltrami’s does what a film score is meant to do, and that automatically gets my praise.

Another thing that is mostly quite improved are the death scenes.  The impalement might not yet be perfect, but it is far better executed with quicker timing and stronger impact through use of digital effects.  Katherine’s fall from the balcony, again while not perfect, is vastly improved with a greater sense of the height from and force of which she falls.  The decapitation death is pretty good giving us more gore, but it’s not as elaborate or prolonged of an effect.  I could’ve done with a little less CGI where some of the latter deaths are concerned, but for the dramatic size of them, there really wasn’t much of an alternative for the filmmakers.  Still, many of these deaths did hold more dramatic weight for me between the strength of the performances, and quality of the execution of each one.

On the opposite end of the critique spectrum from the original, the makeup design on this film’s Father Spiletto, the burned priest, is actually taken too far for my tastes.  The extreme look feels out of place in the film evoking some sort of freakish ghoul.  I can imagine it’s hard to present a burned flesh make-up design that is scary without it looking like Freddy Krueger.  However, there must have been a happy medium these filmmakers could’ve gone for that would’ve felt more realistic.  Still, what I can merit this version for over the original that the quality of the make-up is vastly superior.

Enjoyable so, this film actually delivered some suspenseful scares for me.  This is, again, due to the atmosphere director John Moore forged for this picture.  He is able to create some tension leading up to some frightening or traumatic moments.  The characters are genuinely scared, especially Katherine, and become more so as events unfold which solidify their fears.  Also, I mentioned before that there are a series of dream sequences.  They haunt Katherine early on, but eventually, Robert Thorn starts having his own.  I really, really liked these.  They progressively got more creepy and disturbing.  As most dreams do, they are a little hard to read into as what every image means, but on the surface, they showcase very occult and frighteningly evil acts which do feel in line with Damien.  The final one, seen by Robert, is probably the best with some very chilling faces and images startling the Ambassador onward to what he must come to grips with.

I also really like that this Damien seems to be more aware of the power he has as he appears to silently conspire with Mrs. Baylock, at times.  During the zoo scene, he’s aware that the animals are afraid, and likely of him.  He uses his power against a police officer standing guard while Mrs. Baylock is in the next room committing murder.  I will state that Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick doesn’t have as strong of a look as Harvey Stephens did in this same role.  He can appear a little too dour, but he is able to conjure up an eerie, unsettling expression when needed.  He does quite well in the role.  If the original film had been written with this more self-aware Damien, I think Stephens would’ve had an even more effective performance.  In comparison, I think this Damien is better written while the original’s actor just had a consistently better look.

Now, while this remake generally takes the same amount of time for the same series of events to occur, what makes it work better, in my opinion, is the development of emotional depth and turmoil which establish a foreboding atmosphere.  We get characters who are dimensional, and a director who knows how to create an ominous, foreboding tone.  This version of The Omen definitely has a more natural flow of events with the emotional weight carrying the drama and horror along with cohesion.  You feel the tragedy, horror, and emotion pile up from one scene to the next creating dramatic momentum.  It’s interesting that both the 1976 and 2006 versions have about the same runtime, but this remake seems to move along at a smoother, quicker pace.  There are even a few new scenes in the remake, and thus, this film is able to traverse a little more ground in the same amount of time.  While little extra substance is added into the pages of the script, it really are the performances that add the substance.  And while I criticized the 1976 original for taking just as long to develop its plot, the key difference here is that emotional depth which develops the characters, and creates that impending sense of dread that the original sorely lacked.  This film always feels like it is building towards something whether in plot, character, or emotion.  Robert Thorn has internal struggles he’s dealing with which show through in Liev Schreiber’s performance, and we see Katherine’s struggles very outwardly.  The film gives the audience something to invest themselves in as the plot gradually forms.

So, obviously, without question, I do honestly believe that John Moore’s 2006 remake of The Omen is much more effective than the original.  It’s better in vastly more ways than it is not.  Still, while I believe it is a good film, it certainly did not propel The Omen into greatness in my view.  I enjoyed watching this film, and I felt it delivered some very strong, well rounded acting with a real skill for atmosphere and horror.  Yet, if ever someone were to revisit The Omen again, I would really like more substance put into the script, and add in some new ideas that enhance what’s already there.  Develop things further to build more dire urgency into the plot, and make the stakes bigger or, at least, more real.  This remake took some good steps towards that effect, but I think there’s still room for improvement, if ever another filmmaker wants to re-fashion The Omen for a future generation.


The Omen (1976)

The Omen is one of those classic horror films that has received vast amounts of praise over the years.  It was widely heralded upon release, and gained a powerful reputation of horror since then.  It’s also a film that I have never paid much attention to.  I’ve watched it a time or two before, owned the DVD for years, but it’s never really stuck with me.  Six years ago, a remake was released that was almost a carbon copy, but I recall it having some things I liked about it.  Still, I always felt that both versions came off about equal, in their own ways, but that’s an old assessment.  So, on this Halloween, I have decided to take a fair look at both films to judge them apart from and against one another.  Which one do I prefer?  Which one does it better?  I hope I will have an answer at the end of these two reviews.

Robert and Katherine Thorn (Gregory Peck and Lee Remick) seem to have it all.  They are happily married, and he is the US Ambassador to Great Britain, but they want more than to have children.  When Katharine has a stillborn child, Robert is approached by a priest at the hospital who suggests that they take a healthy newborn whose mother has just died in childbirth.  Without telling his wife, he agrees.  Years later, after relocating to London, strange events – and the ominous warnings of a priest – lead Robert Thorn to believe that the child he took from that Italian hospital is evil incarnate.  The Ambassador is approached by photojournalist Keith Jennings (David Warner) with startling evidence that supports the claims of Father Brennan (Patrick Troughton).  From there, both Thorn and Jennings must take a journey to uncover the truth.

After watching this, what I find striking is that, despite all the great talents and potentially ripe subject matter at hand, this film made barely any impact on me at all.  I can tell you that the film starts me off on the wrong foot with a score that is way too overbearing and obvious, but I will get to that, in depth, later on.  It sets the wrong mood for me right out the gate telling me this is not a film of subtlety, but one of shock moments and broad strokes.  Turns out, that’s exactly what I got.

Early on, there is an extreme lack of suspense or setup to dramatic or horrifying moments such as the nanny’s hanging.  It just happens without any buildup of anticipation or tension, and the traumatic potential is barely dealt with in the aftermath.  Events that should have adverse emotional effects on the characters don’t seem to have lasting impacts.  Even before that, there’s a wholly unnecessary scene where the Thorns are just walking along, and then, freak out when they don’t see Damien trailing behind them.  The score goes melodramatic for a few seconds before they find Damien unharmed just standing around.  The moment served no purpose whatsoever, and it was even handled in a very clunky manner.  The film doesn’t take its time to craft suspense to setup an audience for the chilling moments of horror.  It just sort of drops them in front of you like a bag of bricks.

The thing The Omen really seemed to not take advantage of is building a looming aura.  While there are moments which are strongly implied as being supernatural, that feeling is just fleeting.  We are never given a lasting sense that there is a subversive, sinister force weaving its way through the background.  The film also seemed to lack a natural flow of events in its long first act, and partly because of this, it takes nearly forever to build an atmosphere or sense of perceived direction.  It takes nearly half the film until there’s even a sustained sense of dread or momentum for more than one scene.  In the second half, for a very long stretch of time, Damien’s not even present for the threat of what he is to be sustained.  There’s a simple rule in good storytelling which is “show, don’t tell.”  The film takes more time telling us about what Damien is instead of showing us.  Anything we are shown feels too disjointed due to that lack of natural flow in the story.  Also, I certainly have no qualms about a slow burning film, but it takes until almost the one hour mark before anyone gets motivated into the action of the plot.  Until then, it sort of meanders along with mysterious and murderous things happening, but no one really doing anything in light of them.

This happens when Jennings begins to convey the foreboding details behind Damien.  The notes of Father Brennan about the child, and the startling evidence of the photographs are revealed to Robert Thorn.  These are interesting moments which actually do nicely give us insight into the truth of the matter.  Yet, it could have been used to actually create a foreboding atmosphere of terrible dread and urgency, but there’s barely any atmosphere in this film at all.  I never got a sense of impending doom or urgency at any point in time.  The film becomes so focused on the origins of Damien and what needs to be done about him, almost no time it spent exploring what he’s capable of.  While surely the son of Satan shouldn’t be allowed to live, no time is devoted to conveying what he himself will do if not stopped.  There are obviously forces around Damien causing all this death and tragedy, but he’s barely done anything threatening.  All we get are people repeating the Bible passage about “from the eternal sea he rises,” but no one bothers to translate that into terms a regular person can understand.  It is never put into a real world context.

The priest’s death is a tad ridiculous as he just stands there for several long seconds, waiting for the spire to fall and impale him.  There’s more than enough time for him to run away from it, but he just stands there.  If I look up and see something falling from several stories high about to hit me, I lunge out of the way.  This isn’t nitpicky.  This is challenging the intelligence of the filmmaking on display.  There are any number of better ways to have plotted out and edited that scene for more immediate impact.  At times, such as this one, the filmmakers try to overdramatize these death scenes.  Other times, they under dramatize them to where they have almost no impact at all.  If you want a better example of these sorts of deaths done better, just look at the Final Destination films.

I dearly love the work of the late Jerry Goldsmith.  He was a magnificent composer.  However, when it comes to The Omen, I don’t think I’ve heard a score more devoid of subtlety in my life.  Every single music cue is loud, verbose, and melodramatic to the point of it being obtrusive.  It treats nearly every moment as the biggest dramatic, climactic moment in the film.  It’s well composed, powerful music, but it’s just too over-the-top for my tastes.  It just bludgeons your ears with music.  Moments that are shot and executed with a lot of suspenseful tension are ruined by the blunt instrument of the bombastic score.  People have praised this score as having made the film more terrifying for them.  For me, it kills the mood time and time again, and tries to force more drama upon you than the scene calls for.

Gregory Peck was an immensely acclaimed actor, but I’m a little divided on his performance here.  He does have a very good presence conveying a hefty weight of drama.  However, I feel he overacts in a few too many scenes.  He exaggerates the drama or horror of the moment a little too much, pulling the film out of its grounded sensibilities.  It’s another aspect of the film that could’ve used some more subtlety.  Following further down that path, actor Patrick Troughton pushes his performance as Father Brennan way too over the top into bad B-grade movie territory.  It’s a one dimensional crazy man who is very hard to take seriously.

On the other hand, as always, I think David Warner is excellent.  He’s one of the finest character actors around, and he really handles the role of Jennings with grace and urgency.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen David Warner not give a good performance, and here, he really shows the value and quality he’s consistently brought throughout his career.  Also, Billie Whitelaw is exceptionally good as Mrs. Baylock.  She is effectively creepy with a definite psychotic edge, and a pair of fiercely evil, chilling eyes.  I wouldn’t want that woman roaming around my house.

Harvey Stephens does a fine job as Damien giving him a rather exhuberant fascination that implies his evil.  Although, that evil never really manifests in a knowing way.  It’s more of a screenwriting issue that Damien himself isn’t very active in the plot.  Regardless of that, Harvey mixes both the innocence of a child with an underlying, evil nature.  You can tell there is something not right about the child, and that is effective enough for what the filmmakers were going for.

Unfortunately, I was left with a blank impression of Lee Remick.  She has so very little to do as Katherine Thorn that I just have nothing to say about her performance other than it was okay.  Normally, if I have nothing to say, I say nothing, but I thought it was important to mention this as it ties into a lack of emotional depth in the movie.  That is something I will touch on, again, later.

The effects work is a slightly mixed bag.  Most of the death scenes have very impressive and somewhat elaborate effects.  The decapitation was especially well done.  On the bad side, while people were amazed by the shot of Lee Remick’s fall from the balcony at the time of release, today, it looks comical.  It’s more like something from a parody of the movie than an actual effect to take seriously.  It has absolutely no realistic quality or impact at all.  What would’ve improved it is shooting it at a slower frame to generate more motion blur, and thus, creating a sense of velocity and visceral impact.  Richard Donner might’ve been going for a slow motion approach, but it clearly wasn’t shot in slow motion, just performed in slow motion.  Also, the prosthetic make-up on the burned priest is very primitive by even the standards of the day.  It’s terribly unimpressive work.  These are only minor gripes, but the film doesn’t have a lot of make-up or visual effects to comment on.  That’s neither a good or bad thing, just a statement of fact.

Another real problem I have with this film is that no one is scared out of their minds at any point.  I mean, it is the Anti-Christ, the son of Satan they are dealing with, but never did I feel like anyone was in dreadful fear over this reality.  At least in The Exorcist, the characters were petrified by the fact that they were facing down a demon, and their fear really carried the weight of urgency and threat in that film.  Here, the closest we get is our final moments with Jennings as he tries to convince Robert Thorn that Damien is no innocent child, and that he should be destroyed.  Even then, it’s more a matter of conviction than fright  There is such a lack of emotional depth present in this movie which results in a very mild sense of fear.  This is aside from something like the dogs attacking Thorn and Jennings in the cemetery.  I’m referring to people having a deathly serious fear about Damien.  The characters are more afraid of Mrs. Baylock, the psycho nanny, than the actual spawn of the Devil.  To me, that seems really, really backwards.  He might only be a small child, but if the kid is supposed to be perceived as apocalyptically dangerous, I think our fear should be directed towards him, instead.

While the film does have its potentially shocking moments of brutality and death, I think the scary qualities are entirely religious based, and I have no such beliefs.  I watched this film waiting for it to give me something to be scared or tense about, but nothing ever came.  Even the climax, aside from the violent confrontation with Mrs. Baylock, lacks a driving sense of dramatic intensity.  It would seem that the subject matter is what scared audiences, not so much the execution of the ideas.  I don’t think the style of filmmaking holds up thirty-six years later.  While it’s rather well shot and edited, which I give much credit for to Gilbert Taylor and Stuart Baird, respectively, there’s just a lack of plot cohesion and momentum in The Omen.  This film had talents who were masters at their crafts from Taylor and Baird to Goldsmith, Peck, and Donner, but maybe, this wasn’t the right material for some of them to tackle.  Richard Donner tried to convince himself he was making a psychological suspense thriller instead of a horror movie, apparently because thinking of it as a horror movie made it uninteresting to him.  Obviously, I can’t help but take a serious issue with that point of view.  Yet, what he was trying to make was indeed a horror movie, and I don’t think it’s really his forte as a director.  He knew how to shock an audience, but demonstrated no ability to even attempt to craft suspense.  I think it just comes down to subtlety.  It takes no skill to shock an audience.  To genuinely scare them through atmosphere and suspense requires quite a lot.

Honestly, I didn’t expect The Omen to hit me as this blunt and shallow of a film, and I know there are going to be people reading this shocked at this severe criticism considering the film’s status as a “classic.”  However, no art should ever stand on reputation alone.  Time is not kind to all movies, and some do not stand that test of it.  Not to mention, for someone who has no religious beliefs, I need more than just the ideas this film presents to scare me.  You’ve got to work at it.  You’ve got to earn it, and this film didn’t try hard enough.  The only thing that did stick with me over the years about the movie were my issues with the score, and so, I did go into the film bracing myself for that.  Still, I was willing to give the score a chance to showcase some subtlety, some grace, but there was next to none where it counted.  I really wanted this film to give me something impressive, something that really grabbed me, but it gave me nothing.  I was almost wholly underwhelmed by the 1976 version of The Omen.  At this point, I cannot fathom why I even own this movie beyond the fact that I have it in a beautiful steelbook DVD case.  The creepiest thing in the movie is the last shot of the movie, and I do mean by a very wide margin.


The Devil’s Advocate (1997)

Based on the book by Andrew Neiderman, The Devil’s Advocate is an amazing supernatural horror film with a depth of strong thematic material.  The screenplay, adapted by Jonathan Lemkin and Tony Gilroy, is executed with extraordinary artistic skill by director Taylor Hackford.

Kevin Lomax (Keanu Reeves) is a ruthless young Florida attorney that never lost a case that is recruited by the most powerful law firm in the world.  In spite of his mother’s disagreement, which compares New York City to Babylon, he and his beautiful wife Mary Ann (Charlize Theron) accept the offer and the money that comes along with it.  The firm’s senior partner, John Milton (Al Pacino), sees something very special in Kevin, and showers him with wealth and feeds his vanity.  However, Mary Ann just wants to have a baby, and becomes distressed by Kevin always being on a case and never at home.  A multiple murder case for reviled businessman Alex Cullen (Craig T. Nelson) tears them further apart as Kevin won’t leave the case for fear of hating Mary Ann for doing so.  Feeling homesick, she witnesses horrifying apparitions, and starts to lose her grip on reality – or so it seems.  As Kevin is lured deeper into a treacherous well of unholy evil and seduction, he will come to learn a startling truth that could claim his very soul.

Director Taylor Hackford delivers a very fascinating film where there is always something more subversive occurring beneath the surface.  The courtroom and law scenes are never just proceedings, but a test of morality and conscience in a bigger picture.  There is a strong sense that there is something larger at stake with everything that is going on.  The audience can always feel a supernatural, sullen presence presiding over nearly everything in the film.  This is achieved in many ways from the atmospheric lighting in key scenes to the shady religious themes to John Milton’s skillful seduction.  The film does use a generous amount of religious context to massively profound effect.  People are consumed by their own sins, and are given the means to embrace them without consequence, as long as they have no consciences to worry about.  This is where tying this story directly into the world of defense attorneys and a shady law firm is brilliant.  They are people dedicated to clearing offenders of guilt, regardless of whether or not they are guilty.  For these characters, that requires a certain absence of conscience, and a dedication to deception, which are strongly prevalent themes in this film.

The moral corruption in the film is magnificently showcased through Mary Ann.  She is a very wholesome woman who is thrust into a world of amoral people.  They are pretentious, arrogant people that severely test Mary Ann’s psychological and moral resolve.  She clearly is not comfortable around them, which is best displayed during and after the party scene, and just being around them begins to decay her mental stability.  As she and Kevin are further driven apart, she gets worse and worse where the nightmares and isolation psychologically break her down, but that is ultimately not the worst of it.  Kevin is corrupted differently as John Milton gives him the opportunities to feed his competitive edge and then some.

As I’ve mentioned many times before, I really do like Keanu Reeves.  He’s a better quality actor than many give him credit for.  This performance is a fine example.  I like the dichotomy that Kevin is a very confident and in control person when he’s being a lawyer, but he sacrifices the stability and health of his marriage for it.  He is so deeply ensnared into Milton’s charismatic web of temptation and power that he cannot perceive the moral destruction of his life.  Reeves takes Kevin from those humble roots of a defense attorney who still has some conscience left to one who abandons it all for greater pleasure and glory.  He loved his wife dearly, but ultimately, he is turned against her as they both deteriorate in this “Babylon.”  Reeves shows early on that there is a humanity within Kevin, despite the unsavory things he does to secure a win, and that carries with an audience throughout the picture.  As he’s corrupted further in New York, he never becomes a bad guy to the audience.  We can see what’s happening to Kevin while he does indulge in the thrill of victory and hedonism alongside Milton.  This is also partially due to being intrigued by John Milton’s mystique, the same as Kevin.  We’re both following Milton down this dark path of temptation, and we cannot turn away from it.  Emotionally, Reeves can be intense with one scene showing a horrifying outpour of grief and horror.  Going into the climax, he delivers chilling conviction that ramps up the dramatic power of the film.  Beyond anything else, Keanu Reeves also solidly and consistently pulls off that southern accent.

Al Pacino is absolutely amazing in this film.  He indulges full boar into the hedonism and charisma of this role.  It’s great seeing him cut loose, but he plays it very smartly, only letting the full measure out at the right times.  Milton is definitely a tempter, a guy who opens the door, but never closes it behind you.  He allows you to dig your own grave.  He never seals your fate for you.  Milton gives Kevin plenty of chances to back out, to walk away from the Cullen case to take care of Mary Ann, but he never takes it.  He manipulates no one into doing anything they don’t want to do.  He seduces your desires to the surface.  The film smartly and slowly las the seeds of knowledge that Milton is more than he appears to be.  There’s an unspoken power he has that gradually manifests in more and more dramatic ways as the film goes on.  At a certain point, who and what he is becomes undeniable.  Pacino’s performance is brilliant and vibrant.  The scenes between him and Reeves are the real meat of the film, and they are a powerful pairing that do make this film excell in many ways.

Charlize Theron takes a powerfully emotional journey from that sweet, wholesome, and spirited small town woman to a horribly traumatized and vulnerable one.  Mary Ann might’ve been a young lady to contend with in her small Florida town, but in New York, she is entirely overwhelmed by everything.  She is incredible, and very brave for embracing the challenging demands of this role.  She takes her performance into frighteningly dark places that she should be commended for.  This is definitely an early breakout role for her, and it shows the incredible talent she possesses.  Theron and Reeves have great chemistry, and are so deeply convincing from the passionate, happy couple to the terribly turbulent and fractured one.

The supporting cast has some solid performances from Jeffrey Jones as the gluttonous, arrogant, and abrasive firm partner Eddie Barzoon, Connie Nielsen as the intriguing and somewhat exotic Christabella, Craig T. Nelson putting in a heavyweight performance as the ruthless real estate developer Alex Cullen, and even a small role by Delroy Lindo as the goat sacrificing Phillipe Moyez, who has a dark mystique and implied supernatural power.  This is a fantastically assembled cast in every single aspect, from even the smallest role all the way to the leads.

It should be no surprise that the stirring, ominous, and moody score is the work of James Newton Howard.  It certainly has some gothic and choral elements giving the film a darkly cathedral sound.  It is plenty haunting, especially going into the third act when everything becomes very wicked and surreal.  It’s overall a striking and potent work that regularly maintains that unsettling and foreboding supernatural tone I mentioned before.

The film is also so damn well shot.  The cinematography gives the film such scope and foreboding atmosphere.  It brings profound grandeur and artistry to the thematic weight of the story.  While Andrzej Bartkowiak hasn’t shot much worth noting, he does a remarkable job on this film teamed with director Taylor Hackford.  That cinematography shows off the cultured and artistically modern, for the time, production designs.  John Milton’s office and especially penthouse home are designed with gorgeous vision by Bruno Rubeo.  The location shooting shows off the deep character of the city of New York.  The filmmakers even secured the golden apartment of Donald Trump for that of Alex Cullen.  This authenticity adds so much depth of detail to the film.

The Devil’s Advocate is definitely filled with an array of chilling images and grisly moments.  These are all handled with immense weight and artistry.  Digital effects are used greatly morphing one person’s face, subtly, into a demonic visage, or haunting Mary Ann with other surreal sights.  The climax has some ambitious CGI between the morphing piece of artwork and the explosive fiery effects.  However, the best moments of horror are more practical and psychologically based.  They tap into the unholy evil that looms over everyone twisting peoples’ lives into a tangled web of destruction, and it creates thick tension and taut suspense.  Something fearful has befallen their lives, and it is corrupting in ways they cannot comprehend.  This is all masterfully and intelligently crafted with a strong atmosphere that is like the rumbling of thunder on the horizon.  A dark storm is coming that none of them are prepared for, let alone can see.

The Devil’s Advocate has an amazing and stunning finale punctuated gloriously over the end credits by the Rolling Stones’ “Paint it Black.”  This really is a magnificently conceived and executed film.  Backed by an immensely talented cast, this delivers strongly with strong thematic material and brilliantly realized imagery that chills and frightens.  Aside from some CGI that might not measure up to modern standards, there is nothing negative I can say about this film.  While the 90s where not the best decade for horror, this is certainly one of smartest and most dimensional horror films of that decade which brought us The Exorcist III, New Nightmare, Lord of Illusions, In The Mouth of Madness, and Scream.


Constantine (2005)

I very much love this film, and count it as an all time favorite.  I saw it twice in the theatre in 2005 because I was very much enthralled by the concept of the film and the excellent execution of all its characters and ideas.  It has since remained a strong favorite of the genre for me, and has driven my fandom of John Constantine further.  I was not knowledgeable about him before seeing this adaptation, but in the years since then, I have become a fan.  In the Hellblazer comics from DC / Vertigo, he was a blonde Englishman created by the widely revered Alan Moore and visually based off of Sting, the front man for The Police.  Obviously, that does not fit the description of Keanu Reeves, who portrays the title character as a dark haired American in Los Angeles, and there are numerous other changes here that deviate from the source material.  That inevitably irritated numerous hardcore Hellblazer fans, but since this was my introduction to him, I can allow both versions to co-exist in my fandom.   There are many reasons why I highly love this film including its gorgeous visual style, the world it showcases, and the potential of the characters.

It is said that whoever possesses the Spear of Destiny holds the fate of the world in their hands, and the Spear of Destiny has just been found and put into the hands of evil influences.  In Los Angeles, exorcist and occult detective John Constantine (Keanu Reeves) begins to see foreboding signs of something big and unfriendly coming with demons forcing their way into our world, but at the same time, the anti-social chain smoker is diagnosed with lung cancer.  It’s not so much the diagnosis that troubles him as the knowledge of where he’s going.  John was born with a gift he didn’t want, the ability to clearly recognize the half-breed angels and demons that walk the earth in human skin, and Constantine was driven to take his own life to escape the tormenting clarity of his vision, but he failed.  Now, marked as an attempted suicide with a temporary lease on life, the bitter hard-drinking, hard-living Constantine seeks a reprieve from his Hellbound fate.  He patrols the earthly border between heaven and hell, hoping in vain to earn his way to salvation by sending the devil’s foot soldiers back to the depths.  Unfortunately, he gains no absolution from the half-breed angel Gabriel (Tilda Swinton), and no consolation from strenuous allies such as the ominous former witch doctor Papa Midnite (Djimon Hounsou).  They all adhere to “The Balance” which keeps half-breeds from directly interfering in human affairs in order to settle a wager between God and the Devil for the souls of all mankind.  When desperate but skeptical LAPD Detective Angela Dodson (Rachel Weisz) enlists his help in solving the mysterious death of her beloved psychic twin sister, their investigation pushes them deep into a subversive plot to use the Spear of Destiny to bring forth an evil that threatens to destroy humanity.  Caught in a catastrophic series of otherworldly events, the two become inextricably involved, and seek to find their own peace at whatever cost.

Director Francis Lawrence came from a music video background, and that can be hit or miss when moving to feature films.  However, Lawrence’s background was clearly a benefit as he injects a very powerful and epic visual style into this film.  Director of Photography Philippe Rousselot realizes that immersive vision brilliantly.  His composition is rock solid creating very engaging visuals that pull an audience into the story and characters.  There is depth to spare in his frames, and plenty of grace and integrity in how he shoots everything.  There’s never any handheld camera work.  It’s all fluid movement that contributes to the overall enveloping otherworldly tone of the picture.  The use of color temperatures is very key to the atmosphere as it accentuates the dramatic tones throughout with a vibrant palette.  This is a gracefully shot film with great attention to creating a unique atmosphere and tone in its visuals.

The overall quality of the visual effects are stunning.  They are exceptionally consistent and of an amazing high quality.  From subtle effects like the fiery glint in the eyes of demons to the enveloping landscape of the Hell version of Los Angeles, they create a complete, rich, textured, and full world for John Constantine to exist within that is truly convincing.  The fearsome demonic creatures seen throughout are designed with consistency and originality.  This feels like a world with its own weathered history, and attention is paid to every detail to present it as such.  The entire “into the light” effect in the climax is awesome as the shadows are literally pulled away to force the evil presence into view.  There is never just one effect used over and over again as a crutch.  The film is full of vibrant effects that give the film its fantastical flare.  Overall, every effect is just executed and presented with amazing artistry complementing Francis Lawrence’s vision beautifully.

I also very highly enjoy the score to Constantine.  It has a great atmospheric, haunting electronic style that further fleshes out the otherworldly quality of the film, but still incorporates plenty of traditional score elements that punctuate the rousing, dramatic sequences as well as the softer, more intimate emotions of the film.  Composers Klaus Badelt & Brian Tyler put together one hell of a unique musical accomplishment with this.  I’ve never heard a score quite like this before, and it works so amazingly well.  There is a great use of melody all throughout which enhances the emotional depth that this film is truly rich with.  This is definitely a film that takes a different approach to things to give an audience a very distinctive identity for an all encompassing experience.  The addition of the song “Passive” from A Perfect Circle is wicked cool in my opinion.  It truly set a great tone entering into Papa Midnite’s club.

These enveloping elements wrap together to create a very rich story with a tone full of integrity and gravity.  It can be a very haunting and scary film that uses horror elements at times, but is best categorized as a supernatural dark fantasy action film.  The action in the film are not big set pieces with spectacular stunts.  John’s not some bad ass action hero who can slug it out with a demon.  Instead, he uses his occult and demonic knowledge as well as his skills as a con artist to help him win battles.  He fights smart using the tools he has acquired which exploit the weaknesses of his enemies such as holy water, Moses’ shroud, a pair of Holy Cross brass knuckles, dragon’s breath, and various eclectic items provided to him by his allies.

This story is partially inspired by the Dangerous Habits comics storyline, which I have read.  There’s little directly adapted from that story, and is more just taking the premise of Constantine being diagnosed with lung cancer and having to cope with that.  How he deals with it and the resolutions of the comic and the film are very different, but both greatly show off John’s cunning skill as a con artist to varying degrees.

Constantine himself is very fascinating, and I think this version of him is well portrayed by Keanu Reeves.  I am quite a big fan of his work ranking Point Break as one of my absolute favorite films ever.  I find his work quite enjoyable, and he has some highly impressive acting ability.  I think his approach tends to be more subtle, and with Constantine, he really drives home a very diverse character.  Reeves showcases Constantine’s jaded personality with depth and purpose.  He brings out that worn down, weathered texture that makes the character so intriguing and surprising.  He can be an outright asshole because he’s been both plagued by the knowledge he has about the world around him, and that he’s destined to spend eternity in Hell, regardless of what he does.  He’s tired and frustrated by these rules that these so-called “higher beings” have imposed upon humanity for their own sport, and he knows there’s little he can do to combat that.  Keanu gives the character enough edge while still maintaining an underlying sense of humanity which evolves through the film.  As the story goes along, he becomes more and more invested in Angela as a person instead of just her being a cog in a larger plot.  You gradually see the bond form between the characters, and how that starts to drive John’s actions.  There’s a pivotal shift in there where he stops sulking in his own pain and starts seeing Angela’s.  He sees her regret and how far she’s willing to go to mend it.  John can still be an asshole, but ultimately, it’s just to those that deserve it.  Reeves portrays these subtle and strong emotional beats powerfully showing that there’s more to Constantine beyond that spiteful, embittered exterior.

Another subtle part of John that’s retained from the comics is how his friends constantly pay the price for his battles.  In the comics, John is haunted by the ghosts of his dead friends, and the screenwriters slipped a brief line in here about John not needing another ghost following him around.  So, it’s no wonder that he’s as cynical and jaded as he is, but it’s also these circumstances which drive him to fight.  He challenges everyone on their egotistical or hypocritical behavior, and allows no one to slide.

However, the arc for the character takes him from being a self-serving person who fights evil for his own sake to someone that does the right thing for the sake of others.  It takes nothing away from the hardened core of the character, it just makes him an actual hero by the end.  That is helped immensely by Rachel Weisz’s emotionally impactful performance.  Reeves and Weisz had previously worked together on the 1996 film Chain Reaction as love interests, and perhaps that added a stronger chemistry between them.  In this film, their chemistry is exceptionally solid and tight.  They have great back-and-forth dialogue with sharp timing and rich character dynamics.  Angela is also easily able to stand up to John’s abrasive attitude which is a welcomed quality.  Weisz strongly portrays the more emotionally and psychologically vulnerable counter-balance of the story.  This allows an audience to have a relatable conduit into the character of John Constantine and his supernatural world.  Rachel Weisz is an incredible actress showcasing a wide range of abilities here.  She is remarkably powerful bringing out the emotional pain that Angela has deep within.  However, while Angela is vulnerable, she is a police detective, and thus, Weisz never makes her appear helpless or incapable of defending herself.  She has a definite strong will and confidence about her mixed in with a grounded, engaging charm.  It’s simply that the character been impacted by tragic events, and is thrust into a potentially frightening scenario which brings out those fearful or unstable elements in her.  Weisz handles it all with dramatic weight and grace.

It is also immensely impressive how strong the supporting cast is in Constantine.  Djimon Hounsou has such an awesome presence as the witch doctor turned night club owner Papa Midnite.  His deep voice and subtle charisma give weight and gravity to his performance.  He can be greatly imposing and intimidating without even standing up in his initial scene.  Hounsou and Reeves spark a fascinating chemistry.  They play the characters with a sense of shared history which has its turbulent areas which causes friction and some antagonism between them.  The screenwriters had a good philosophy of the best way to convey exposition about a character is to show them working.  You get to know more about Midnite and Constantine through what they do and how they go about doing it than can really be conveyed through straight dialogue interactions.  This is showcased beautifully in the sequence with “The Chair” which allows John to see the path the Spear of Destiny has taken recently, and to find out where Angela has been taken.  It’s a manner of operating alluding to information that is necessary for them to know to do what they need to do, but is not necessary to be spelled out for the audience.  This further reflects the sense that this a world with a long, textured history between characters, and it is presented in a very smart way that never bogs down the film with extraneous exposition.  Midnite himself has a very pleasing arc in the story that ultimately shows Hounsou’s range and charm.  He makes the character very fascinating, imposing, but ultimately, highly pleasing.

Tilda Swinton is immaculately graceful and elegant as the half-breed angel Gabriel.  The filmmakers chose to go with an androgynous quality for the character, and absolutely wanted Swinton for the role.  They chose incredibly well.  Her performance has a gentle compassion that eventually turns into a subtle megalomaniacal mindset.  She also has an ethereal aura and presence about her that is pitch perfect.  It’s a nice dynamic when Constantine goes to see her with him ranting and calling out the hypocrisy at hand, but she offers up a very warm, motherly tone with him.  They are both trying to make each other see things from their perspective, and neither is entirely in the right.  There is a very aristocratic, snobbish mentality from Gabriel that John can’t stomach, and it works so exceptionally well for this character.  It’s such a remarkable performance that the words to describe it in depth escape me.

Now, this film was before Shia LeBouf started grating on peoples’ nerves, but here, there’s enough heart and charm with him as Chas to make his performance a pleasure.  Chas is spirited and driven to be given the chance to be of real assistance to Constantine instead of just his personal cab driver, but John just knows the danger of allowing him to do so.  Yet, Chas is eventually given the chance to show his worth.  As with everyone else, the chemistry is dead on the mark perfect.  Gavin Rossdale’s turn as the demon Balthazar is oozing with charisma.  He relishes being engulfed in evil, and that delicious smarmy arrogance just pours out over the screen.  The tension and spite between him and John is thick as can be.  You can’t help but love and hate him all at the same time.  All of the actors throughout the film really inhabited their characters with exceptional commitment and nuance, and came together as a cohesive whole to deliver something diverse and marvelous.

Of course, there is Peter Stormare’s magnificent performance as Lucifer himself.  There have been so many portrayals of the Devil over the years in cinema from some massively talented actors, and each portrayal has been unique.  Stormare takes unique to a whole new level here.  The physicality alone is unsettling as if he’s trying to uncomfortably fit back into a human form like it’s an old out of shape body suit, and it results in some peculiar and tense nervous energy.  The look is striking enough without devolving into shock.  The shaved eyebrows and shorn haircut along with the tattoos really present a standout visual that separates Lucifer from everyone else in the film.  Stormare takes all of this to forge a weirdly eccentric Devil that doesn’t need to flaunt an ego or boast of his power.  His creepy, chilling presence sells everything.  The addition of the pure white suit and bare feet was a nice touch, and it really fits the visual aesthetics of the film.

While I have nothing against a well done origin, it is very commendable that this is not an origin story spending a large percentage of the film showing how Constantine became the man he is today.  His back story is not even revealed until well into the second act as we get to know it alongside Angela, and allusions to other shared histories are sprinkled throughout.  The film treats its audience as intelligent by not having to explain every little thing.  It presents a world, gradually lays out the general parameters of how it works, and then, allows it to envelop the audience.  I like this approach for the character because there is a lot of John Constantine history that is very relevant to the character, but it would be nigh impossible to hit all the poignant marks to develop him fully in a two hour film.  Starting a film series here is very interesting because it takes John from the jaded, weathered depths to someone more purposeful and formidable.  It is a greatly executed arc wrapped up in a strong plotline backed by some excellent talents in front of and behind the camera.

It seems hard to judge where this movie stands in terms of general consensus.  It’s not one of those comic book movies everyone talks about, or includes on the list of the best or worst adaptations.  I seem to perceive this as a film that had good commercial success, but tends to get overlooked for no apparent reason.  Professional critics were divided on it, but the thing with critics is that they get paid to go see movies they are not always pre-disposed to enjoy.  This was a movie that appealed to my tastes via its marketing, and it did blow me away.  Again, the hardcore fans of Hellblazer likely had their passionate gripes with all the changes made to the established elements of the property, but it’s not a bad film at all.  It’s exceptionally well made from a filmmaker with great vision and artistry, and features an amazing cast that put their all into it.  From an objective point of view, it’s a greatly entertaining and satisfying film.  It has plenty of interesting action, an excellently crafted world, fantastic, stunning visual effects, a unique and fascinating score, and is just generally well written all the way around.  I really love this film, and I love what I’ve read in the Hellblazer trade paperbacks.  Both offer me something different but equally satisfying to my tastes for supernatural horror and dark fantasy.  If you’re unfamiliar with the property, this film can ease you into the heavier subject matter and grittier feel of the comics, but they are two unmistakably different presentations on the characters and the world they inhabit.  Taking the film on its own merits, it’s a highly imaginative, excellent piece of work that is worth investing your time and interest in.


Warlock: The Armageddon (1993)

I truly like and enjoy the original Warlock from director Steve Miner.  While the low budget restricted its overall production quality, the good script and high caliber acting talents of Julian Sands and Richard E. Grant really made it something worthwhile.  It’s one of those films which showed a lot of potential, and that with a larger budget and stronger production values, it really could’ve been amazing.  The rights for the film eventually ended up at Trimark Pictures which came to specialize in some decent genre and B-movie successes, mostly direct-to-video releases, but were ultimately absorbed by Artisan Entertainment and subsequently Lionsgate Films.  With the rights to the first film, Trimark decided to make a sequel with those better production values.  Warlock: The Armageddon brings the Warlock back from oblivion, but this sequel would’ve been better off staying in oblivion.  The golden-maned Julian Sands portrays the Warlock far more devilishly in this one with a darker charm, but has no worthy or even respectable adversary this time around.  Sands essentially carries the entire movie, and any scene without him is rather uninteresting.  His charisma and charm on screen is so electric that you simply crave more of it when he leaves the screen.  The plot doesn’t offer anything all that engaging or particularly special.

The Warlock is brought back to recover a collection of gems that, together, can destroy all of creation (yes, again) by bringing his father, Satan, into our world.  Meanwhile, in some rural town two teenagers are chosen by some most unimpressive Druids to be trained and fight the Warlock.  Chris Young and Paula Marshall, respectively, portray these two youths, Kenny and Samantha, who aren’t too fond of their parents having to kill them first before being imbued with these new special powers.  As the Warlock dispatches of several non-formidable obstacles to obtain these gems, these two teenagers in love try to come to grips with what they have been tasked with, and fear for the evil that is coming for them.

I can’t wrap my head around how we go from the amazing character of Redferne, portrayed by the exceptional Richard E. Grant, to a couple of teenagers who frankly care more about what they’re gonna do on Saturday night than being the saviors of all creation.  These two amateurs are expected to go up against the unholy spawn of Satan and prevail?  I can only suspend my disbelief so much before a premise becomes laughable.  Truly, I was more involved in the Warlock and his quest to destroy humanity than caring about this rural pair of teens in love being forced into a situation they want nothing to do with.  There is hardly anything endearing or engaging about their half of the movie.  Honestly, I wanted this film to have nothing to do with them.  It’s rather sad when you come to actually wanting the villain to destroy all of existence.  At least we would have been spared more sequels.  Of course, Sands was not brought back for Warlock III: The End of Innocence, which was a non-sequel casting Bruce Payne in the title role.

This sequel is much gorier than the original, but the story and characters are far weaker.  It’s not a question of bad acting, it’s a question of a bad script.  Whereas the original film was written by the exceptionally talented David Twohy, the screenwriters of this sequel, Kevin Rock & Sam Bernard, have nothing of special note in either of their filmographies, and nothing at all written since the late 1990s.  Director Anthony Hickox had just finished Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, and I feel this film is worse than that uneven sequel.  Hickox directed some decent horror films like Waxwork & Waxwork II, but after Warlock: The Armageddon, he never directed, wrote, acted in, or produced another recognizable film.  At best, he’s proven to be a B-grade director not capable of producing anything without a hefty helping of cheese and over the top sensibilities.  Ultimately, looking over the credits of this film, the only notable talent involved is Julian Sands.  From the screenwriters to the director of photography to the music composer, there’s nobody of note here.  Charles Hallahan (The Thing) and Zach Galligan (Gremlins, Waxwork) do have roles here, but they’re essentially nothing more than inconsequential supporting roles.

On a technical level, the movie is well made with competent cinematography giving everything a fine polish and sheen.  It looks a little more cinematic than the first movie, but it certainly has its limitations.  Some sets are clearly more restrictive in size and style than what their real world counterparts would be such as the fashion show venue.  Also, one action scene takes place in a small American southwest town which looks like the back lot for some low budget western, aside from the parking meters.  The Warlock literally has a showdown with a couple of guys with shotguns dressed in bad western attire.  It’s another unsatisfying thing attributed to both the screenplay and the low budget.  They can’t afford to place the climax of the film in an interesting setting, so, it all happens in a forest-like environment where there are no production values to show off.  While earlier sequences were mainly on sets that did the best with the budget they had, the climax just makes it look cheaper with uninventive ideas of setting or action.  Of course, Anthony Hickox had the climax of Hellraiser III take place on the late night streets of Los Angeles, and showed a lot of explosions and action, but it ultimately amounted to pointless drivel that dumbed down that franchise to an achingly low level, despite the production values.  I can’t say that more money would’ve fixed the creative or artistic problems with the film.  It was a rather bland story to begin with, and the climax gets to the point where I’d rather prefer seeing the Warlock triumph.

I can say that the visual and makeup effects are entirely superior to the previous film, and that’s bizarre since this film’s budget was $4 million less than the first film.  Perhaps, it’s simply a benefit of the evolution of digital effects replacing optical composites in the four year gap between films that gives this sequel a higher quality in that area.  The powers of the Warlock are exponentially more extensive and destructive here than in the first movie, but it doesn’t matter much when the story loses the heart and the charm that the first had with Redferne.  You can read my earlier review of that film for a more in-depth insight into what really gave Steve Miner’s film so much promise.

Again, Warlock: The Armageddon is really cheesy and pathetically weak in nearly every facet with Sands being the only exception.  This sequel is okay if you want to see more of Julian Sands’ purely evil, sadistic, and wonderfully devilish performance, but that is all that is worth seeing in this film.  The original Warlock wasn’t any major blockbuster success, and so, Trimark probably didn’t feel as if all that much effort needed to be put forth for a sequel.  Again, Trimark was never known for very high quality films, but there are a few that I still heavily enjoy.  However, this is not one of them.  If the first movie was filmed as well as this one, and had this much gore – it would’ve kicked some real ass.  Unfortunately, what really is the most important aspect with both is good story and character.  This film lacks both whereas the original Warlock really had it in good amounts.  It was well written with some character depth and a consistently enjoyable premise.  This sequel was dumb on arrival with only Julian Sands bringing anything truly entertaining to the project. See it if you want, but you’re not missing much otherwise.  At best, it’s cheesy early 90s horror schlock.  I would better recommend watching the original Warlock, or if you really want some bad ass demonic vanquishing, try Constantine.  This was a franchise that hardly ever got going anywhere, and with this sequel, it’s easy to see why it was not a success.


Warlock (1989)

Warlock is a film I have always enjoyed, but have also always felt a little let down by.  It’s a fantasy horror feature that had a great deal of potential with some fantastic performances and a good story behind it, but a low budget really hindered its potential.  Directed by Steve Miner (Friday The 13th, Parts 2 & 3), Warlock was produced by the struggling New World Pictures in the late 1980s.  It didn’t gain a release in the US until 1991 due to New World’s filing of Chapter 11 bankruptcy soon after the movie was completed.  Trimark Pictures gained the rights to the series which have since been absorbed by Lionsgate.  Sequels were produced (one with Julian Sands, one with Bruce Payne), and while they had more impressive production values, they both were generally inferior on a screenplay level to the original.  Unfortunately, a proper widescreen DVD release has still not been made available by anyone who’s held the rights.  However, I have discovered an excellent quality widescreen presentation via FearNet OnDemand.  Seeing it only on VHS all these years, I am astounded by its quality, and that is going to factor into my revised review here.  Still, I have to hope that this transfer will become available in a new home video release in the high-definition digital era.

The film starts out in Boston, 1691 where Giles Redferne (Richard E. Grant) – a witch hunter – has captured the Warlock (Julian Sands), and is soon to be executed in a most ‘Salem witch trial’ sort of way.  Although, the Warlock escapes in a time warp via the forces of Hell.  He is transported to the year 1988 (the present) to locate the three parts of the Devil’s Bible which will give him the true name of God, and the power to destroy all of creation.  However, Redferne (Richard E. Grant) is able to follow him to the future, only one day too late.  The Warlock has a head start on him, and has already placed an extreme aging spell on Kassandra (Lori Singer), the young woman whose home the Warlock crash landed into.  So, now it’s up to Redferne to track down his archenemy before he destroys all of creation.

This is an impressively effective supernatural thriller.  That is due to several talented individuals putting a lot of skill and time into this.  It is a steadily paced picture filled with a good balance of suspense, action, light humor, dramatic moments, and horror elements.  Gore only minimally factors into the film.  It is the atmosphere and the deliciously evil, sinister performance of Julian Sands that helps land it near the realm of horror.  He truly turns the film into gold above its budgetary shortcomings.  He is the perfect evil disguised as a man – as the trailer states – “with the face of an angel, and the charm of the Devil.”  He is frightening with an amazingly chilling screen presence that pulls you in fully.  He can set a foreboding tone without saying a word.

Meanwhile Richard E. Grant delivers a fine performance bringing the pure-hearted, moral charm of the out-of-time and out-of-place Redferne to the surface.  Grant makes Redferne a very likeable character as he has a warm heart of gold without becoming sappy.  He maybe a bit naive because of him being a stranger in an even stranger land, but he remains dedicated to his purpose and oath to bring an end to the Warlock for all time.  Redferne could’ve come off as a rather campy hero, but beyond all the old word speech, the value of Grant’s performance shines through to present an honest, grounded protagonist.  Redferne is given a depth and history to give him his avenging motivations for hunting the Warlock to the ends of the world and time.  Grant inhabits those qualities with weight and conviction.  Redferne is also a worthy adversary as he is knowledgeable and experienced in hunting the Warlock, and is more than capable of not only combating him, but ridding the world of him.  Most importantly, Redferne has heart – which is something you don’t usually see in this sort of genre picture.  It’s a perfect contrast of good and evil where the performances of Grant and Sands are concerned.  One is a passionate man of virtue, and the other is an icy cold villain.  When the two occasionally share a scene, it is juicy, meaty content that fuels the momentum of the film.  Their final confrontation in the climax is very strong, and allows the characters to feed off of one another, fleshing out their sordid history.  It is a powerful and nicely crafted climax indeed.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing special or greatly important about Lori Singer’s character, but in the least, Kassandra is a decently enjoyable guide through the late 20th century for our kind-hearted hero from the 17th century.  She does build a nice chemistry with Grant which gives way to some charming humor at appropriate moments.

The few visual and makeup effects present in the film were decent for the time it was made and the budget it was allotted.  Still, some of the optical visual effects are severely dated by today’s standards.  They may even seem obsolete by the groundbreaking standards of the day (i.e. The Abyss, Predator, A Nightmare On Elm Street 4).  This really only applies to the optical composites of the Warlock flying.  Although, I doubt the low budget effects will hinder your enjoyment of the film greatly.  I have witnessed films, released before and after this one, with tremendously lower quality effects.  I did find a nostalgic appreciation for the animated magical fire the Warlock wields.  On the practical side, the old age make-up used on Lori Singer while she is hexed by the Warlock was far from being a crowning achievement, but it’s never been a serious detractor for me over all these years.

Steve Miner does as good of a job as ever here despite the film not being high on scares or blood – unlike his work on the first two Friday The 13th sequels.  However, Warlock is a worthwhile supernatural thriller, and Miner should be proud of what he was able to create here.  He handles the story with respect and care.  He provides suspense and tension where need be, and is able to ramp the intensity up at the right moments.  The screenwriter for this film was David Twohy (The Fugitive, Pitch Black, The Chronicles of Riddick), and he definitely wrote a fine script that shows a rough, early version of his now well-known style.  If Twohy wanted to direct a remake, or a worthy sequel – I’d definitely be privy to seeing it.  With a more generous budget and little studio interference, he can churn out a really good film.

Looking at the credits of this film, there are a some notable names that would become horror veterans themselves.  Two I noticed were David R. Ellis (director of Final Destination 2 & 4) as stunt coordinator and second unit director, and special make-up effects artist Tom Woodruff, Jr. of Stan Winston Studios and later Amalgamated Dynamics, Inc. (who have become responsible for the creature effects on all the Alien sequels).  It’s always interesting to see that such amazing talents worked on a film such as this early on.  It gives good context on where they’ve been, and how they’ve advanced their craft over the years.

The cinematography is fairly good.  There’s a nice choice of angles and movement, and in select scenes, very moody lighting that enhances the Warlock’s dramatic presence.  These elements come together quite well with the visual effects to create a darkly fantastical atmosphere.  I don’t know how well it all would work for a modern audience, but since I grew up through this era, I can appreciate it with a nostalgic context.

The one last thing to praise is the late Jerry Goldsmith’s score.  I have loved his work for years from his scores for the Star Trek franchise to an endless MASSIVE list of feature films.  His score for Warlock had haunting, mysterious elements, and an epic feeling at the film’s climax.  This musical master always delivered something memorable and wonderfully cinematic, no matter what the film or genre.  It’s a sad thing he is no longer with us.  I just hope that his legacy will be carried on by new generations of musical masters.

In the end, it really is the budget that holds down the greatness of this film.  It had some solid talent in front of and behind the camera along with a well written screenplay.  Not to mention, the title role was perfectly cast with an actor that envelopes the screen, and inhabits every scene with vile charm.  Warlock simply did not have the money to boost its production values to a level comparable to the talent involved.  It generally does not look cheap, but the dated and low quality visual and make-up effects damage it.  But where there are films that falter despite great visual effects and production values, this one soars to respectable heights despite lower grade effects and budgetary limitations.  This is due to the quality of talent injected into it, and the solid foundation laid down with David Twohy’s script.  It’s full of charm, suspense, mystery, intrigue, and subtle terror.  I thank the now defunct Trimark Pictures for picking up this film from the then defunct New World Pictures.  I just wish Lionsgate would do something special for this old gem because it honestly deserves it.


Prince of Darkness (1987)

Prince of Darkness is certainly one of John Carpenter’s stranger and more underappreciated films.  It’s the second installment in what Carpenter calls his “apocalypse trilogy” (which includes 1982’s The Thing and 1995’s In The Mouth of Madness).  Simply put, this film is about the coming of the apocalypse, and the arrival of the Prince of Darkness – Satan himself.  This is one seriously eerie and creepy film, but it has the slowest pace of any Carpenter film I have seen.  I believe this film comes as an acquired taste.  It can take multiple viewings to really enjoy it fully, as it did for me.

A group of scientists, students, and priests – led by Father Loomis (Donald Pleasance) and Professor Howard Birack (Victor Wong) – have come to study a mysterious canister which has been sealed away in the basement of a Los Angeles church.  The eerie green liquid inside this canister proves to be supernatural as it defies gravity, leaking upwards to the ceiling, and soon, it’s discovered that it is self-organizing as part of a living intelligence.  This has made way for changes to occur in nature that herald the coming of something evil.  And those who come into contact with this liquid are transformed into mindless undead slaves of Satan himself.  Outside the church, the homeless and derelicts of Los Angeles become powerless against the influence of hell.  The few human beings inside the church are trapped – barricading themselves inside with threats all around them.  Theories are abound as to what is happening and philosophies about heaven, hell, and all of creation.  But whatever forces are at work, these few people must not only survive these servants of hell, but also prevent the coming of the Prince of Darkness from the other side.

If you choose to watch this film, I suggest you get things as dark and as quite as possible, put in the DVD, get that surround sound just right, and get ready to experience one of the most haunting, frightening films ever.  This is possibly the most taut and suspenseful Carpenter film of all-time.  The master of terror gives us a film that nobody should easily be able to forget.  The score from John Carpenter & Alan Howarth is absolutely mesmerizing and powerful.  Right from the beginning, it sucks you into a creepy and absolutely ominous world, and doesn’t let go until the end credits have finished.  It’s an absorbing, killer work of musicianship that compliments the film marvelously.

The effects here are great.  There’s nothing here as complex as in The Thing (which Rob Bottin really delivered something groundbreaking), but there’s plenty of scary makeup work and visuals to unsettle any audience.  There’s such apocalyptic biblical imagery here – including swarms of creepy crawly critters – that it will have you squirming and jumping from your seat.  John Carpenter wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym “Martin Quartermass,” and man, he does just such an amazing job eliciting such haunting emotions.  The film has such a suspenseful power that it could ONLY come from John Carpenter.

That pseudonym is only one of several that Carpenter has employed in his career.  He uses them because he feels uncomfortable with his name plastered all over the credits as if it’s an egotistical thing to take so much credit.  Me, I believe in everyone getting the credit they deserve for the hard work they do.  The fact of the matter is that I know who Martin Quartermass, John T. Chance, and Frank Armitage are, and it is still John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness.

The cast is full of Carpenter regulars such as Donald Pleaseance (Halloween, Escape From New York), Victor Wong & Dennis Dun (Big Trouble in Little China), and Peter Jason (They Live, In The Mouth of Madness).  Also, Jameson Parker from TV’s Simon & Simon is in a lead role as well.  It’s very much a Carpenter style cast in that he doesn’t cast big stars, but a lot of strong character actors that give the film a textured diversity.  I really enjoy all their talents, and they all put in fantastic efforts.  John Carpenter has always been great in the casting department (probably best displayed in The Thing).  We even get a cameo from shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and he contributes the title song from the album of the same name.  The song only appears in a small scene, and via a guy’s walkman radio.  In any case, it’s always nice to see Alice appear in a horror film via an acting role or as a musician.  He has no lines, but appears creepy enough as one of the derelict servants outside the church.  Overall, this cast gives a lot of life and character to this slow-paced film.

In a way, this is different from most Carpenter movies, mainly in pace.  He’s always made very smart pictures, and his horror has never been something you can entirely shut your brain off for.  And while Prince of Darkness is full of atmosphere that drives every horror element forward, it is much more an idea and philosophy driven screenplay.  There are very few action set pieces as the danger and horror are played through tense atmosphere and chilling visuals.  It’s a film that crawls in under your skin slowly, and requires you to stay mentally aware of what’s happening for it to have the proper effect.

There’s a good deal of discussion in the film about philosophies regarding dreams, death, hell, religion, and so forth.  This adds to the psychological aspect of the film since it revolves around such supernatural or paranormal phenomena birthed out of an ancient evil covered up by the church.  With the film having such a wide ensemble cast, they have plenty of room for differing opinions and beliefs, but don’t let this make you think the film gets bogged down by it.  Not at all.  As they uncover more truths, it enhances the fearful and foreboding atmosphere of the film.  There is a haunting evil taking form in their presence, and it is slowly consuming them either physically or psychologically.

In everyone’s dreams, they see a transmission from the future of a dark figure exiting the front of the church they are all holed up in.  They get only bits and pieces, but they all share it getting a little more each time they fall asleep.  It is another piece of the foreboding doom that lies ahead of them, and it is immensely effective.

Prince of Darkness definitely has similarities to an old style zombie film where a group of mismatched people have to fend for their lives against an undead army.  However, Carpenter just pushes it further with so much more substance and unsettling visuals.  This really is a nightmare come to life.  A constant theme in Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy is some sort of force consuming humanity and deteriorating it into something entirely inhuman.  In The Thing, it’s an actual alien life form that perfectly duplicates any organism it infects which could eventually wipe out the human race.  With In The Mouth of Madness, reality is twisted and distorted to where people become psychotic and homicidal in the wake of ancient evil reclaiming our world.  In Prince of Darkness, it’s sort of a bridge between the concepts.  As an ancient evil slowly claws its way back into our world, it also consumes nature and humanity until they become entirely mindless, inhuman servants.  Coming from three different screenwriters on three different films, that is an entirely fascinating conceptual arc.

This film is undoubtedly one of John Carpenter’s finest works.  Some don’t take a good liking to it because of its slow, slow pace, and its focus more on suspense than physical intensity.  Whatever the case, I find it to be a masterwork worthy of inclusion to anyone’s DVD collection.  The cast is very good, fun at times, but solid always.  The score is pure gold, a powerful accomplishment for Carpenter and Alan Howarth.  As in any Carpenter film, the cinematography is stellar, and the direction is absolutely phenomenal!  If you genuinely want to get creeped out to the max one dark, lonely night – this is the one film to watch!  I won’t say that Prince of Darkness is a perfect film as the pace can be a detractor to its potential.  Part of good tension and suspense is momentum, and it’s not entirely consistent here.  However, it is a great flick, and I will give it a great 9 out of 10.  If nothing else, the ending will grab you like only a John Carpenter film can!