The Exorcist: Believer.

Review #2099: The Exorcist: Believer.

Cast: 

Leslie Odom Jr (Victor Fielding), Ann Dowd (Ann), Jennifer Nettles (Miranda), Norbert Leo Butz (Tony), Lidya Jewett (Angela Fielding), Olivia Marcum (Katherine), Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Okwui Okpokwasili (Dr. Beehibe), Raphael Sbarge (Don Revans), and Danny McCarthy (Stuart) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018), #1752 - Halloween Kills, and #1906 - Halloween Ends)

Review: 

In the beginning was The Exorcist (1973), and the directorial word was with William Friedkin and the written word was William Peter Blatty. As you probably already know, the novel came about because of a story that Blatty heard about a teenager that had suffered possession from the Devil before undergoing an exorcism. To put it mildly, it was one hell of a good time in atmospheric quality that was made by a craftsman with striking belief in what they were doing when it came to suspense and the "mystery of faith, the mystery of goodness, that mystery which is inexplicable, but it's there." For better or worse, no other film with the Exorcist label has come even close to following it as a sequel or even a prequel. The 1977 sequel was made by someone who vehemently rejected doing the original, while Blatty's 1990 feature was meddled by executives for the ending. Exorcist: The Beginning (2004) and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) is a tale for another time to pick apart. Anyway. One wonders if you thought this was going to be a good film even with hearing that it would apparently be the first of three new Exorcist films. I believed that there was a flicker of hope, because Green did manage to make one successful Halloween film that seemed like the best of the shovel-load of the previous sequels. Of course, he made two inferior films immediately after (Ends was so frustrating that I wrote two thousand words about it), but I had my hope for even the most basic average quality. In theory, a new Exorcist film could have opened the door for trying to blow the doors off all of those other films about exorcisms and possessions that have followed in the wake of the original. Maybe there was something useful to say as the 50th anniversary of the original film was this year, even with the passing of William Friedkin. The screenplay was done by Peter Sattler and David Gordon Green, while the story was done by Scott Teems, Danny McBride, and David Gordon Green.

Congratulations, we have the worst Exorcist sequel since Exorcist II: The Heretic. I would say that Gordon Green should be ashamed of himself for making such a mediocre movie, but I am not sure if he actually would have shame at the idea of making yet another hack sequel to a horror franchise. One detects the belief of trying to play both tribute and one-upper when it comes to Believer, which goes from mildly bland in its first half to a climax that is somehow less scary than a homeless man talking to you about Christ while smelling of alcohol. Friedkin never saw the sequels, but I think his statement about them proves doubly correct here, what Believer does in its "attempt to do is to defrock the story and to send the thing up.” When it comes to acting, it reminds of a bland family drama. It mildly involves the viewer, because the initial setup (after a snoozer prologue) is two children that wind up going missing before turning up with burns on the feet and a strange affliction. There is no sense of tension with these actors, even with Odom trying his best to deliver a performance of someone of challenged faith. You might wonder where Burstyn comes in to play as the one returning actor from the original (well, not the only one...), and oh look, a main character of a previous film being found to have written a book on their previous experience, haven't seen that before. I imagine the paycheck was great for such a shallow role that lasts all of a couple of minutes, because it surely proves that even Academy Award winning actresses can flail in films that don't give them a useful role just like everyone else (such as say, Linda Blair from the second one). It is amusing that the film does fine with its effects but finds nothing when it comes to sacrifice or suspense. Why should we care about what happens in this film with these people when it doesn't have the fortitude to do anything to challenge the perception that this is just a worthless retread? One would have better ethical dilemmas when debating whether to donate $1 or $5 to their receipt than what they see here. Unlike the do-gooders that bloated words about the 1973 film having an R rating rather than an X rating, there won't be a soul here that even care that this is R-rated, because the teens and adults have seen better.

You might wonder why I feel a 5 is necessary for this film. Well, I wanted to be fair and take a nap before debating the merits of calling it either "not quite good enough in mediocrity" or "not even mediocre enough to maybe recommend". Every compliment I could give the film seems like a back-handed one when thinking back to other better films one could watch in 2023 or in their archives. So what if the film looks decent to view? So what if the actors don't detract the quality in acting? So what, so what, so what, this film is crap. At least crap like Blood of Dracula (1957) have the excuse of rushing through production to entertain audiences as their reason to be fast and cheap, but this is a multi-million-dollar budgeted film that serves as yet another violation of not understanding why the original film was as powerful and entertaining as it was. The original was made by a believer that knew how serious it was to treat its story with dignity to go with useful effects that managed to even make a medical procedure seem frightening to view. This film is made by people who should know better but only seem to make a case for people like me to call them hacks, pure and simple. I cannot imagine seeing another one of these in the theater, but heaven (or hell) knows horror films are always ripe for surprise. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Oh look, a 2023 horror film that doesn't suck: Saw X.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004).

Review #1254: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Major Bennett Marco), Meryl Streep (Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw), Liev Schreiber (Congressman Raymond Prentiss Shaw), Jon Voight (Senator Thomas Jordan), Kimberly Elise (Eugenie Rose), Vera Farmiga (Jocelyn Jordan), Jeffrey Wright (CPL Al Melvin), Simon McBurney (Dr. Atticus Noyle), Bruno Ganz (Delp), Ann Dowd (Congresswoman Beckett), Ted Levine (Colonel Howard), Miguel Ferrer (Colonel Garret), and Dean Stockwell (Mark Whiting) Directed by Jonathan Demme.

Review: 
One could say plenty about the idea of remaking classic films, particularly when it comes to one as classic as the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate. As much as one could want to deride yet another remake for the sake of remakes, the idea to try and update the Richard Condon novel for the current age does show enough promise to make things seem palpable. The original film was a neo-noir/suspense thriller that had plenty of power within its cast and other elements that inspired plenty of shock and biting satire that one would assume continues as much the second time around. The key differences between the original and this version involves updating the enemy from nefarious communists to an equally nefarious private equity firm alongside making both Shaw and his mother politicians along with one crucial twist involving the climatic assassination. In general, this film also seems more paranoid and aware of its surroundings of when it was made, which stands fairly firm even after fifteen years since its release. Those who are familiar with the work (novel or film) will see where it is going to end up, but it doesn't mean the surprises aren't still there waiting to pounce, most of which land just fine. It surely must've proved a challenge for director Jonathan Demme and writers Daniel Pyne & Dean Georgaris to try and make a follow-up worth the impact that John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod did with direction and writing the first time around. I do think that the final result is a fairly welcome one, deserving of existing alongside its predecessor as a capable if imperfect political thriller.

At least one can say the main foundation of cast members is sturdy to try and hold things together, whether they have time on screen to make a lasting impression or not. In this sense, Washington does a fine job with what is given, taking a different road from what was tasked before, showing plenty of conviction in trying to hold things together enough to grasp at the truth behind what he experienced and what hides behind with what isn't know. Streep shows plenty of fierce vigor whenever she enters the screen, whether when dealing with her on-screen son or with other forces at work, with her ruthless presence being felt handily. Schrieber handles his task without too much difficulty, where you can see the manufactured side of who he has been made to be alongside the vulnerability of what comes out at the surface that can't be meshed out. Voight and Farmiga don't have as much to do here as before, in part because of the fast-tracking that means the nomination goes without too much difficulty (with the rivalry between Voight and Streep not picking up as much steam as it probably could have). Elise's character also undergoes a bit of changes (mainly to add a bit of connective plausibility to how she just happens to be on the same train as Marco besides just being a supermarket clerk), and she does okay with being in the margins of the plot, I suppose. The other members of the cast (including a criminally underused Stockwell) do okay, with Wright making the most impression in his one scene in the beginning, a shadow of himself that serves to cast against the light of heroism shown in the initial scene. After all, the brainwashing sequences (involving an influx of science-fiction) are spread out in the film as opposed to being laid out from the get go, which does tend to work out in the film's favor without being too hokey. Maybe it isn't as subversive as it wants to really be, but at least it does reach some sort of thoughtful levels in its end. It isn't a film that will inspires many re-watches, but I would postulate that it is at least worth one look of consideration, having a cast that clings to a cynical update on what was done before with a little bit of polish and shock to go with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hereditary.

Review #1099: Hereditary.

Cast: 
Toni Collette (Annie Graham), Alex Wolff (Peter Graham), Milly Shapiro (Charlie Graham), Gabriel Byrne (Steve Graham), and Ann Dowd (Joan) Directed by Ari Aster.

Review: 
If you had not already heard, my city had quite a storm on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, with the result being that some parts of my town were flooded. As such, the review for this film (which had already been out for nearly two weeks by the time I saw it on Tuesday night) was delayed from its original intended day of Wednesday to now - apologies for doing so, but I hope that you will enjoy this review, which somehow managed to be over 700 words.

Admittedly, horror films can span numerous threads and situations, where it can be things besides just trying to get a quick scare, and there have been some recent films that showcase interesting examples of getting scares. I'm reminded of The Witch (2015, also distributed by the film studio A24), which mixed its 17th century family dynamic (and a short cast) with some creepy atmosphere to make for some fine entertainment. It had a methodical way of pacing despite being 93 minutes, but I bought into what it sold. With this movie (and its 127 minute run-time), you would not be surprised that this is a slow burn to watch, complete with family drama and occasionally creepy horror moments. For better or worse, this film sets out with ambition to tell a nightmare tale mixed with tragedy - with one result being some whiplash.

In its short cast, Collette delivers the best performance, fully committed to her role with the kind of devotion and grace that you would expect in a film (whether involving family horror or not) that certainly lends itself some attention. Wolff is fairly solid for his time on screen to watch, but it isn't anything particularly memorable aside from what you'd probably expect from a conventional role - for better or worse. Shapiro, in a role that seems in-line with creepy kids you'd see in horror films is okay, but it isn't anything too special. Byrne is fine, if not a bit unassuming. Dowd is slightly refreshing in that she's the only one in a prominent role that isn't one of these dreary family characters, even if it's a brief role. Watching this movie play out is an exercise in seeing people disintegrate in terms of emotional state that toes the line between being compelling and unintentionally amusing. The dinner room sequence in particular is an example of where the movie may gain or lose some people, in that you might find yourself either finding it to be something to think about, or something to giggle at in how these lines could almost be used ironically. The cinematography by Pawel Pogorzelski is pretty fine to look at, and it sure helps in a movie that likes to linger at times. Perhaps it is the clutter of its subplots that ultimately serves to the film's benefit or its downfall for viewers, and I find myself in the latter category. It has a few moments that are a bit surprising, but those are more offbeat than terrifying. It isn't so much that I wanted the film to bask itself in being familiar, but scenes such as the seance actually seemed more interesting than when it liked to linger on its family drama or even the reaction shots. Sometimes the cliche or the tried-and-true method really does make for an entertaining movie over just one that likes to play around with occasional intensity, complete with an ending that I'm sure will satisfy anyone looking for jarring ways to close off the family angle - but for me it was just a way to get one good laugh. Whether it is disturbing or just silly is up to you.

You might say that this is something that probably needs a second watch to really look into what makes this movie tick with its sensibilities to try and make a nightmare ride, but I can't find myself doing so. It especially suffers if you compare it to other modern horror films, such as The Witch or It, or even newer releases like Upgrade because I felt not so much less unsettled by those movies but more satisfied with where it ultimately went. Movies can be emotionally powerful things to watch, but this one felt a bit flat for me, although that's not to say it won't be for someone with more patience or more understanding, however. Perhaps it is my disappointment that influences my thoughts on the movie, which isn't terrible in any real sense. It is hard to find the right grading for a movie that certainly will work for people buying into what it is trying to sell in horror and tragedy, but it is also a film that feels hollow in the parts that mattered most to me - being compellingly scary. If you're into the sort of thing that this movie is going for, all power to you, but for me I can't do the same.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.