Exorcist: The Beginning.

Review #2466: Exorcist: The Beginning.

Cast: 

Stellan Skarsgård (Father Lankester Merrin), Izabella Scorupco (Sarah), James D'Arcy (Father Francis), Remy Sweeney (Joseph), Julian Wadham (Major Granville), Andrew French (Chuma), Ralph Brown (Sergeant Major), Ben Cross (Semelier), David Bradley (Father Gionetti), Alan Ford (Jefferies), Antonie Kamerling (Lieutenant Kessel), with Eddie Osei (Emekwi), and Rupert Degas (Pazuzu) Directed by Renny Harlin (#016 - Die Hard 2, #670 - Cliffhanger, #745 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, #2163 - The Adventures of Ford Fairlane, #2240 - Cutthroat Island)

Review:

"What I tried to do is set up a lot of those unanswered questions that we see in the original. There are a lot of open plotlines that are never explained, so I tried to make it so that if you watch this film and then watch the original 'Exorcist,' the original will seem like the sequel."

Hey, remember when people thought The Exorcist could be a franchise? Morgan Creek Productions, not content with their excessive tinkering of William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist III (1990), had started plans to make a prequel to, well, The Exorcist (1973) in the late 1990s. William Wisher Jr (co-writer of Terminator 2: Judgement Day) did a first draft, and there were already people hired to try and helm the project by 1999 with Tom McLoughlin, but he left because of issues with the script. Apparently, the 2000 re-release (and subsequent money made from it) of the Exorcist film helped to put The Beginning on the fast track. Caleb Carr (novelist of books such as The Alienist) revised the screenplay and there were plans to have John Frankenheimer direct with Liam Neeson as the star in the summer of 2002...but neither came to pass, as Frankenheimer fell ill; he died in July 2002. Instead, Paul Schrader (director of Cat People (1983) and writer of films such as Taxi Driver) was hired to direct, with "Exorcist: The Beginning" beginning filming in late 2002. Schrader did his rewrite of the script to trim certain things, and the film was first screened to studio executives in May of 2003...and they didn't even bother to give him notes, as he was dumped because they apparently wanted to "re-edit the movie to make it scarier". They tried to re-cut the movie with Schrader involved and then Morgan Creek said to hell with things and instead searched for a new director for the film. They landed on Renny Harlin, who went with re-writes (Skip Woods, Alexi Hawley, and even Harlin himself, although only Hawley was credited), a few new actors (all but Skarsgård, French, Kamerling, and Wadham left) and, well, "action". The new Beginning film was shot in late 2003 but apparently had a hell of a time actually finishing production (Schrader had his film ripped out from under him, Harlin got hit by a car during production and was on crutches). In total, a movie that wa meant to be done for $35 million ballooned to $90 million and wasn't even screened for critics. At least Schrader seemed positive about seeing his version come to the masses, albeit as a "there's a buck to be made" while Blatty (in seeing The Beginning with Schrader in a theater) called The Beginning "surely the most humiliating professional experience of my life, particularly the finale."

It is so funny that Morgan Creek wanted to make a "scarier" film and wasted so much money on a venture that was just going to be skewered no matter what because of the history that comes with trying to play off the "Exorcist" name. III was the only good follow-up, and that was the one where the studio forced an exorcism for the climax. Harlin's movie suffers from just feeling so routine in its execution to the point of exhaustion, mainly because it is a corny experience to actually see play out, at least when you consider buried churches, goofy climaxes with voices, and butterflies. Apparently, Skarsgård (cast as a young version originally played by Max Vox Sydow, who also happened to be from Sweden) had differing approaches for his performance in each movie, once being quoted as saying that he was "much darker" in the Schrader version and even changed his makeup for this version. Undeniably, he does at least manage to be the shining light in either version you watch, mainly because you buy him as Merrin without it seeming like someone just playing dress-up. It at least matters a tiny bit to see his progression beyond just moving away from religion and to step into the shoes that we know, suffice to say. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast does not fare as well, mainly because the movie is so confused about what it really wants to do besides cheap moments (one guy slashing himself, another guy confronting butterflies and shooting himself) that you don't get a feel for any of them. One guy has a bunch of boils on his face and that's about all you can really say as a character. I guess there's one neat line in talking about the spot where Lucifer fell when it comes to the spooky buried church. The movie tries to fake you out in the idea that the focus of the possessed is actually a kid when really it is a woman and honestly, I couldn't help but chuckle because it meant that you at least see a spider-walk from an adult (complete with a demon voice talking about mounting because get it, they did it in the first one) rather than having to see the image of a kid doing it. One doesn't care about the conflict of the people besides Merrin, this could've almost been set anywhere if you think about it, complete with a lack of mystery. In general, the movie is just kind of boring, not really doing anything that makes you think about the first film in a different light while being a general waste of everyone's time. As someone who does give slack on occasion to compromised movies and things*, this was just one of those movies that goes out one ear and through the other. Morgan Creek spent oodles of money but couldn't find anything for audiences to give a damn about, that's probably the scariest thing in the whole movie.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

*Exorcist III was probably better with the exorcism in it, change my mind. Or Rise of Skywalker. Or The Stupids. Or any other strange film that I at least have given credit to over the years.

Chariots of Fire.

Review #1464: Chariots of Fire.

Cast:
Ben Cross (Harold Abrahams), Ian Charleson (Eric Liddell), Nicholas Farrell (Aubrey Montague), Nigel Havers (Lord Andrew Lindsay), Ian Holm (Sam Mussabini), John Gielgud (Master of Trinity College), Lindsay Anderson (Master of Caius College), Cheryl Campbell (Jennie Liddell), Alice Krige (Sybil Gordon), Struan Rodger (Sandy McGrath), Nigel Davenport (Lord Birkenhead), and Patrick Magee (Lord Cadogan) Directed by Hugh Hudson.

Review: 
"The artist is a credulous animal. He is often a dreamer. And if he finds someone who appears to share his dream, or, even better, someone with the means to realize that dream, then that artist tends to believe in Santa Claus."

Sometimes you just need a film about the will to win. I suppose if anyone had to try and make a sports film about the triumph of victory with perseverance and faith, it might as well be one from the British about something historical. Whether that makes for a true classic or not is up to the viewer, who no doubt will have heard that one tune from Vangelis that starts the film up, one that is inspirational and all the jazz. This was a co-production between Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox (international) that was spearheaded by British producer David Puttnam, having been behind films such as Bugsy Malone (1976) and Midnight Express (1978) that wanted to do a film in the mold of A Man for All Seasons (1966) - where one had to follow their conscience, which just happened to fit the mold of the story of the 1924 Olympics that was written by actor-turned-writer Colin Welland. The director tasked to do the film was Hugh Hudson, a first-time film director mostly known for advertising and documentaries. If they managed to accomplish an accurate film, let them enjoy the fruits of said attention, even if there had to be certain liberties taken to get to this point: One can't really be serious to believe a runner wouldn't know about a heat being on Sunday right before going on a trip to compete in the Olympics. Two characters are based on folks that refused permission to have their real names to being used, while a romance for one of the leads is actually ten years too early. There is a mix of established and young faces, with Cross, Charleson, Farrell, and Havers being backed up by Holm, Gielgud, and Anderson. The sentiment must have paid off, since the film won four Academy Awards (one each for Puttnam Vangelis, and Welland), including Best Picture (over films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Reds - a punchline in it of itself).

If one really gets a tremendous inspiration from the story of two runners making their mark on the world through their faith and courage, go right on ahead. It has all the things one could for appeal for the traditionalists (with a modern electronic music touch) that goes for the inspirational without leaning on extreme sentiment or anything with too much contrivances - entertainment or otherwise. And yet, here I am, trying to figure out why it proves so average in my experience - a picture of illusion and platitudes that nearly choke out the air of actually finding something to really say anything meaningful about liking it. In other words, it feels like someone pulled over a bag over my head and somehow got me to the market while I only saw a bunch of decent images in the bag. We are talking about a "sports film" of running, after all. It seems like the kind of film people rush to elevate on a pedestal when trying to make a "prestige picture" that only just balances its story of Liddell and Abrahams to where I appreciate the effort and some of its aspects that go with it while not really reaching a high point. David Watkin does well with the cinematography, and Cross and Charleson are at least calm enough to make their struggle one to care for. Gielgud and Richardson are exactly what you could expect from the college angle, dignified and with reason even when doing a scene about expressing certain doubts about Charleson and his methods to glory. Holm proves to be most enterprising of the bunch, endearing in steadfast conviction that we care to see for what we see spliced in from time to time in teaching to victory without falling to all the clichés. In the end, it just depends on what one really sees the film in the prism of entertainment. Some people really get swept up in a film that is all about conviction and country - I just see it as not too far removed from other "sports films" that have their own little foundation of courage for the underdog, where you might as well call it Rocky (1976) for British people and running. If you are into a film of the stiff upper lip in the face of adversity for 124 minutes, this may very well be for you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

First Knight.

Review #1274: First Knight.

Cast: 
Sean Connery (King Arthur), Richard Gere (Lancelot), Julia Ormond (Guinevere), Ben Cross (Prince Malagant), John Gielgud (Oswald), Liam Cunningham (Sir Agravain), Christopher Villiers (Sir Kay), Valentine Pelka (Sir Patrise), Colin McCormack (Sir Mador), and Alexis Denisof (Sir Gaheris) Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret! and #664 - Airplane!)

Review: 
Making a medieval movie certainly is a familiar one, especially when it comes to the King Arthur legend. It seems irresistible to compare this film to Excalibur (1981), but there are key differences present in the script, with a screenplay from William Nicholson and a story from Lorne Cameron, David Hoselton and Nicholson that takes inspiration from the writings of Chrétien de Troyes regarding Lancelot and Arthur, which has an absence of fantasy elements. The age difference in this love triangle is also significant, with Ormond being out-aged by Connery and Gere by 35 and 15 years, respectively. But this really isn't a movie where one can just use the age as an easy out to give a critique. No, this is a film that is already pretty mediocre enough to sink itself, squandering its cast alongside an entertaining Jerry Goldsmith score with a film that doesn't have enough energy in the right places to make this a consistently worthwhile experience. When one thinks a battle sequence would help the film get going, the film eventually proves that seeing people fight with swords and mini crossbows doesn't quite pan out this time around. Connery takes 30 minutes to appear, which means one will spend quite a bit of time seeing the presumed seeds of chemistry between Gere and Ormond being planted, which really seem more like dollar-store seeds more than anything. If you had a part in making a King Arthur play in high school (or less generously, middle school), you would likely find more interest present between these two characters that actually resonate better than what is seen here. Even having Connery in the picture doesn't help this love triangle seem anything more than a badly written romance novel, as if one needs campiness to make this have a spark. Gere comes out of it the worst of the three, not seeming interesting enough to really drive things into suspense, whether with a sword or with a woman, while Connery seems so mildly interested in what the script says as a paragon of virtue nearing his end (nice to make a centuries-old spoiler), and Ormond manages to comes off okay. The two share just a kiss, as if any more passion would prove too shocking or riveting. Cross doesn't prove too well as a villain, perhaps because the film is too dull to really make him seem like an interesting one to follow around, especially when it comes to the final fight, notably done with CGI swords to make for faster movements. Gielgud makes a small appearance that works just as well as one could expect without being a mark of ridiculousness for the famed actor. There just happens to be too much baggage and not enough energy, honestly. If you don't have tension nor passion in a film like this, you have a disappointment that proves to be a utter frustration to sit through, where one can pick at its failings and still wonder what they missed. It isn't laughably bad, but it sure isn't a fun one to go through, whether one is big on the King Arthur legend or not.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Trek (2009).

Redux Review #009: Star Trek.

Cast: 
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Leonard Nimoy (Spock Prime), Eric Bana (Captain Nero), Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike), Karl Urban (Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy), Zoe Saldaña (Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Montgomery "Scotty" Scott), John Cho (Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Pavel Chekov), Ben Cross (Sarek), Winona Ryder (Amanda Grayson), Clifton Collins, Jr. (Ayel), Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk), and Jennifer Morrison (Winona Kirk) Directed by J. J. Abrams.

Review: 
On December 20, 2010, I covered Star Trek (2009). As is the case with any of the reviews from Season One, while I do feel the rating is probably still accurate to what I feel now as opposed to then, it does feel appropriate to revisit this film, since it has been ten years since its release on May 8, 2009. Hope you folks enjoy - live long and prosper.

It goes without saying that Star Trek is a cultural phenomenon. It has endured for over a half-century in part because of how entertaining it has proven itself to be with a balance of adventure and intelligence throughout its several incarnations. While the original series was cancelled after just three seasons in 1969, it proved to be a hit in syndication, leading to an eventual feature film and a subsequent film franchise. From 1979 to 2002, ten films were released into theaters, six covering the original cast and four with the cast of the third Star Trek show, Star Trek: The Next Generation, which began in 1987. From that year onto 2005, there was at least one Star Trek series on television, with four series coming and going before the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise. That, alongside the previous failure of Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) led to a pursuit for a different direction of the franchise, with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (writers of Mission: Impossible III alongside J. J. Abrams) brought in to help write a new film, with Abrams initially being brought in as producer. However, he subsequently accepted Paramount Pictures' offer to serve as director, owing to how he felt about the duo's script, describing it in an interview as "...so emotional and so relatable". It is evident to see that Abrams has a passion for entertainment, even if he described himself as someone who was not a particularly a big fan of the original show. He wanted to make a movie that any sort of fan can be interested in without becoming a shell of itself or becoming too absorbed in references. The idea of making a prequel wasn't new to Star Trek, since plans for an Academy Years film was thought up after the failure of the fifth film in 1989, although it was soon scrapped, and the aforementioned Enterprise show was set a century prior to the original. This film tries to have a balance with its time travel aspects and its usage of Nimoy to bridge the past into making a new, somewhat familiar future, which works itself out more often than not.

Undeniably, the film hinges on the dynamic of Pine and Quinto and their characters, with the film building itself up towards them being in the film together. I found myself more interested in the sequence with a young Spock and Sarek than the part with young Kirk, since it felt more impactful to the nature of the plot dynamic, seeing how the former is one of two worlds where the other has had better moments. By the time the plot kicks in, one does get a hold for most of these characters without too many objections (whether fan or not). Pine, trying to not find himself playing a shadow of the original Kirk played by William Shatner, comes off as fairly charming to be around with, fitting right in with the adventure and delivering some of the heroic qualities one would expect, as brash and confident as one can be. Quinto, who has the interesting proposition of trying to fit themselves in as a character while being passed the torch by the previous actor, proves quite capable. He delivers a measured performance, as calm and logical as per the standard while maintaining both human and alien nature that plays off well when with others like Pine, where the seeds of a friendship get well cultivated by the film. When Nimoy appears (feeling as a mix of fan-service and a way to deliver exposition), it does sure feel nice to see him back again, seeming just as in-step with his calm exterior and logic as ever when he is on screen. Bana makes for an okay villain, but he feels underscored when compared to the things around him. His ultimate plan never really seems to come into focus as much as it should. It is clear to see that they want to make a villain just as threatening as Khan from the second film, but they can't quite make someone worth being around. Greenwood carries his weight for the first half quite nicely, encouraging and reliable at once. Urban does well with recreating the abrasive yet amusing nature of his role without too much trouble, feeling right at home for his time on screen. Saldana proves to be a fine match to go alongside the others, as is the case with Pegg, Cho, and Yelchin, who each get their little moments into shine without seeming lost in the background. Instead of a 1960s take on how the 23rd century would be with regard to space travel, now it is a 2009 take, with plenty of lighting choices to go around alongside other things. It certainly is an interesting movie to look at, having plenty of interesting effects (and enough lens flare to point out and likely stair or make fun of) that makes this a well-done spectacle while having enough of a grip with a capable if not flawed plot (in the age of the Internet one could have a bit of day with its usage of black holes); it manages to have a strong foundation while lingering forward in its middle and closing out strongly enough to make a winner. It sets out to please both fans of the original and curious newcomers and does well with its intentions, finding a middle ground that inspires some joy, a little bit of laughs (mostly intentional), but also a pursuit to see where it could go from there, maintaining the spirit of curiosity and wonder from before without being lost in spectacle or technobabble. It works as a recommendation for newcomers and fans looking for a new frontier to set their eyes on.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.