Showing posts with label David Bradley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Bradley. Show all posts

November 5, 2025

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.

July 18, 2019

12 to the Moon.


Review #1247: 12 to the Moon.

Cast: 
Ken Clark (Capt. John Anderson), Michi Kobi (Dr. Hideko Murata), Tom Conway (Dr. Feodor Orloff), Anthony Dexter (Dr. Luis Vargas), John Wengraf (Dr. Erich Heinrich), Robert Montgomery Jr. (Dr. Rod Murdock), Phillip Baird (Dr. William Rochester), Richard Weber (Dr. David Ruskin), Muzaffer Tema (Dr. Selim Hamid), Roger Til (Dr. Etienne Martel), Cory Devlin (Dr. Asmara Markonen), Anna-Lisa (Dr. Sigrid Bomark), and Francis X. Bushman (Secretary General of the International Space Order) Directed by David Bradley (#824 - Talk About a Stranger)

Review: 
It only proves natural to land on a science fiction movie, but it also proves interesting to do a film involving people trying to travel to the Moon on this particular month and year, what with a film ship name of "Lunar Eagle 1". It was released in the time of the Space Age, sandwiched between the dawn of Sputnik 1 and Explorer 1 just a few years earlier and the Earth orbiting missions of Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn that would occur the year after the release of the film. It proves interesting to note the ideas the film has with travel to the moon - not only does the mission include a mix of men and women of several countries (only the second film to do so, with First Spaceship on Venus being released just months earlier), it also includes a bunch of animals like cats and monkeys with them as well (one's really got to know if the cats will raise any new kittens on the moon, which I guess is the curiosity the cat lobby wanted to know). It wouldn't be hard to think this was made on the cheap fast. After all, this was a film shot in eight days on a $150,000 budget, utilizing devices around them such as editing machines for communication devices, or darkroom timers with obscured brand names. But ambition can outride a dearth of money or big-name talent if done right. Really, the most notable person behind this is John Alton as cinematographer, with this being his penultimate work of over three decades of work that ranged, doing work such as He Walked by Night (1948) and the balletwork in An American in Paris (1951). 

Honestly, the final product isn't terrible, it just falters with clunky parts that can't hold an interesting international space angle together for 74 minutes. It is an odd little movie that surely will leave a few heads spinning with either confusion or a few chuckles - neither of which the filmmakers (or two writers with Fred Gebhardt and DeWitt Bodeen) probably wanted. Nobody pulls a real great performance with their respective time to make moments, but at least one can ride with these folks and pretend that each would be suitable to be on a big ridiculous mission like this, from the two with squabble over relatives taking out their relatives being the ones doing the final mission together to the French communist saboteur at the end. It would probably be too easy to give this movie flack for its holes in terms of science, since this was done before a picture of the Earth was even done, although I will say the moon picture writing being a bunch of random shapes that still gets translated is pretty amusing. Really, there are plenty of silly moments to sift through. The quicksand sequence is also a bit amusing to sit through, having about as much danger as if one just lied on their back on the beach and pretended to sink. One has to love the fact that the "The Great Coordinator of the Moon" want the crew to leave the cats with them right before they leave the place - guess the dog wasn't cool enough to belong on the Moon with the space folks, who we never actually see in person. Actually, the space helmets with "invisible electro magnetic ray screens" is just as hysterical to think about, if not more. The solar flare footage for the end when dealing with erupting a volcano to thaw out the world (yes, really) probably qualifies in the "taking the cake" competition. It could go on further, but let's just say that this is a movie with quite an imagination over what makes for a space movie, having plenty of cliches on less than half a tank of money and time to go with. In the end, this is a film that won't win any kind of award or notations for great entertainment quality, flailing the lines of mediocrity that only can come from a fast and cheap kind of sci-fi film as this, found in the bottom of an Internet search or multi-movie pack. You could get a laugh or two while looking at it with mild interest, for better or worse.

Next Time: Something truly deserving to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

July 29, 2016

Talk About a Stranger.


Review #824: Talk About a Stranger.

Cast
George Murphy (Robert Fontaine Sr), Nancy Davis (Marge Fontaine), Billy Gray (Robert 'Bud' Fontaine Jr.), Lewis Stone (William J. Wardlaw), Kurt Kasznar (Dr. Paul Mahler, aka Matlock), and Anna Glomb (Camille Wardlaw) Directed by David Bradley.

Review
I suppose you could classify this as a film noir. There are some shots in the film that are noteworthy to watch, but on the whole it is at best an okay movie. Gray is the main one the movie focuses on, and while at times he does okay at showing anguish, the rest of the time he comes off as either annoying or mean spirited, but then again this is a child actor we're talking about. There really isn't any mystery to it, coming off as a slog even at 65 minutes. I guess the lesson one could learn is how people aren't always what they appear to be (which you could learn in a book from fifth grade), but I think a better one would be to not go on a vendetta type of investigation and vandalize people's stuff just because you don't like them. The movie could be summarized like this: Mysterious guy moves into town. Kid's dog dies soon after. Vendetta investigation ensues. Kid finds his dog wasn't murdered. The end. Obviously there's a part about trying to keep the citrus from freezing, but it isn't much to talk about (also: while one could summarize almost any movie with a few sentences, I'm trying to demonstrate why I didn't particularly care for this film). There isn't much in terms of mystery (compelling mystery, anyway), or much of a lively cast (Murphy and Davis are manageable, but not given much to do), but if you're looking for a 50's film, I guess it works, though I could not get into it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.