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.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Review #1627: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Cast: 

Russell Crowe (Captain Jack Aubrey), Paul Bettany (Dr. Stephen Maturin, Surgeon), James D'Arcy (1st Lt. Tom Pullings), Edward Woodall (2nd Lt. William Mowett), Chris Larkin (Capt. Howard, Royal Marines), Max Pirkis (Blakeney, Midshipman), Jack Randall (Boyle, Midshipman), Max Benitz (Calamy, Midshipman), Lee Ingleby (Hollom, Midshipman), Richard Pates (Williamson, Midshipman), Robert Pugh (Mr. Allen, Master), Richard McCabe (Mr. Higgins, Surgeon's Mate), Ian Mercer (Mr. Hollar, Boatswain), Tony Dolan (Mr. Lamb, Carpenter), and David Threlfall (Preserved Killick, Captain's Steward) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously, #1185 - Witness, and #1519 - The Truman Show)

Review: 

"Peter Weir's film is brilliant. An exacting, detail oriented, epic tale of fidelity to Empire & service, regardless of the cost. Incredible cinematography by Russell Boyd & a majestic soundtrack. Definitely an adults movie." - Russell Crowe

The sea epic is a tough task to get right, when you think about it. This is a film that spends over 80% of its time on the water that is an interesting curiosity: a booming studio epic that received notice from audiences but stands on its own sealegs as a stand-alone adventure (in other words, a film that a studio liked in counting the profits but not like all the way to go back again into the well). It's a shame too, because it ended up overshadowed by a certain other film involving ships and spectacle in the same year that inspired a franchise despite being adapted from a theme park ride (Pirates of the Caribbean). With this one, it is a loose adaptation of the Aubrey-Maturin series (named for the two main focuses in a ship captain and naval surgeon/spy, respectively), a collection of works done by Patrick O'Brien (who reportedly wrote his works with ink and quill). The British author wrote twenty complete novels over the course of thirty years (with an incomplete work at the time of O'Brian's death in 2000 being released four years later). The script, written by Peter Weir and John Collee, takes elements from several novels of the series, ranging from the first novel in Master and Commander to The Far Side of the World. The series was noted for their attention to detail with naval jargon alongside the depiction of numerous events that occur in the 19th century (primarily with the Napoleonic Wars), with O'Brien drawing from the exploits of commanders such as Horatio Nelson alongside research of The Naval Chronicle that dealt with detail about the lives and battles involving members of the Royal Navy.

What can one expect for a film that starts with a opening text that describes the ocean as a battlefield? Quite a bit, actually. We have a film that took measures to recreate a man-of-war alongside having a replica mounted on gimbals in a large tank to go with digital rendering (most notably with the USS Constitution, turned into a French vessel - incidentally, The Fortune of War, O'Brien's sixth work in the series, depicts the ship in battle) that certainly compares relatively well with Weir's previous output of work that was quite eclectic (this was his 13th film, with his next one being seven years later). Weir (who also served as a producer) knows what he wants from his actors when it comes to trying to make an engaging spectacle of leadership and camaraderie come across without lingering on cliché or seeming dull with its 138 minute run-time. It certainly is easy to see why an actor like Crowe or anyone with his flair for adventure would enjoy this film, because it appeals to the curiosity that a youth or an adult can have about history or strategy in leadership (in that sense, one could think about Star Trek, since it took inspiration from another sea-faring novel series just as famous with C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower). Granted, it isn't the kind of film that can be digested for those lacking patience or perhaps something more than the sea (such as say a smart mouthed pirate), but it has a great look and sound that really will make one believe they are in a 19th century ship trying to do the impossible. I don't think it sells each and every breath-taking moment, but it certainly will prove enough for those with the disposition for it. Crowe certainly grabs the lead role with the confidence required to make the film his own without suffocating it with brutish cliché or being overwhelmed by the sense of being the man of the moment that could be thought of as having the aura of a performance from a war film (besides, one of the most famous lines about every man expected to their duty for England came from Nelson). Bettany follows along with useful enterprise, one with dutiful interest that goes with Crowe in interesting sync with each other in terms of friendship that makes for a few stirring moments of interest, with the operation sequence (involving surgery on oneself to the look of his friend) probably being the best highlight. The rest of the actors do well in filling the spirit of what is needed in a ship adventure: stories to tell besides being on the cannon or clutching a post in water, whether that means strong quiet types like D'Arcy or youthful presences like Benitz and Perkins or established elder presence with Innes to carry the tension and leave the film on fine shoulders. One gets to see a rousing sea battle without too much warning for its opening act alongside cat-and-mouse tactics of ship faring and even a bit of time spent in the Galapagos Islands, and it ultimately results in a messy (in the right way) climax between two ships that closes itself with a hint for continuing pursuits in the sea without having to shake your head for it. It proves to be one of the unsung heroes of entertaining epics - interesting for those who like to see details and respect play out in a film on its own terms that leaves it to imagination for adventure that makes a pretty good time for those who seek what it wants to show with good reason.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dunkirk (2017).

Review #980: Dunkirk.

Cast: 
Fionn Whitehead (Tommy), Tom Glynn-Carney (Peter), Jack Lowden (Collins), Harry Styles (Alex), Aneurin Barnard (Gibson), James D'Arcy (Colonel Winnant), Barry Keoghan (George), Kenneth Branagh (Commander Bolton), Cillian Murphy (Shivering Soldier), Mark Rylance (Mr. Dawson), and Tom Hardy (Farrier) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, and #062 - Batman Begins)

Review: 
I must admit, I did not know how long this film was going to be, in part because I had figured that a war film like this would be roughly two hours (or more), but as it turns out the film manages to run for 106 minutes; in any case, the movie (as stated by Nolan himself) is more of a suspense film than a war movie, but this is still a finely tuned film that achieves most (if not all of its goals). It shines especially on a technical level, from its structure to its editing to its cinematography, with the film having a great look and feel to it. The battles (along with the sequences in the water) are executed well as one would expect. It isn't a film that tries to show the horrors of war, but it does manage to have a lot of tension through the facial expressions of the characters along with sounds (such a ticking noise). The cast do a fine job, with the narratives each having something interesting to watch (aside from the tension that never lets up); Whitehead and the others within his narrative don't give any sort of great performance, but they are watchable enough to where one cares about their survival without having the film being about them (after all, we don't know any of the character's full name), and it works in delivering thrills in that regard; Rylance, Branagh and Murphy are fine standouts, delivering their roles with fine authority in the amount of time they have on screen. There is never a moment where you are taken out of the experience, it is an unrelenting film that approaches its subject matter with class and dignity (with the effects looking good as well). The best thing I can say about the film is that it is well executed in its vision by Nolan that surely will be up for some awards on a technical basis later in the year. It isn't a perfect film, but it is definitely a fine experience that is worth watching at least once.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.