Speaking of exorcism...

This has been out for awhile, but I thought I'd post it.



Now, what to think of this? I think even an extremely conservative believer in exorcism would find this offensive. Hypothetically, even if one believed it was a sin to be gay, exorcising someone for that sin could be seen as forgiving culpability. If one can be exorcised for homosexuality, it's not a far stretch to see other sins as similarly external. It forgives responsibility, which seems like an abuse of the rite of exorcism itself.

Add to this how offensive it is to equate homosexuality with evil, and I don't see how anyone could NOT find this disturbing.
-DR

The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist by Matt Baglio

I've been reading The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist by Matt Baglio, and so far it's been really fascinating, especially concerning the reality of demonic possession compared to possession in cinema. For instance, most exorcisms take only about twenty minutes to subdue the demon, and reactions to the exorcism can vary from screaming, speaking in tongues or unknown languages, or threatening violence to coughing and yawning, depending on the intensity of the infestation. However, I found this passage particularly interesting, so I thought I'd include it:


"In the lore of exorcism, perhaps nothing is more infamous (because it it so spectacular) as the victim vomiting strange objects or copious amounts of fluid, sometimes even blood. Most of us remember Linda Blair's projectile vomit in the film The Exorcist, and Father Carmine [a priest profiled in the book] had a case wherein a woman vomited buckets of sperm. Such action typically signifies a curse; the person has eaten cursed food that he or she needs to eject. Vomiting objects such as finely woven hair or beads, or even blood clots, is a common indication of a curse as well. Or, in the case of a voodoo doll, the victim may vomit up a nail.

Note that exorcists believe these objects don't necessarily come from the person's stomach, but instead materialize in the mouth. In this way, such people are not harmed physically even though they appear to vomit sharp objects such as pieces of glass or needles...

Other exorcists have seen things that defy explanations, such as pools of mysterious black liquid appearing on the floor, or live animals- including crabs and scorpions- vomited up. Father Carmine once saw a woman vomit a small black toad that was alive. When he went to catch it, it fizzled away into saliva" (Baglio, 151).

However, Baglio goes on to assure that, as "psychotic patients swallow strange objects and them routinely," this can not be held as sole proof of possession. I don't know about this. Could a person really swallow a live animal and bring it back up still kickin'? I would think such a thing would be definitive proof.

Anyway, whether or not one believes, this is a fascinating book to pick up for some summer beach reading. :) Once I'm done, I'll post a full review.

-DR

True Blood

True Blood is getting good, y'all. Seriously. The series has definitely expounded upon the books in an enjoyable and consistent way, making the series even truer to the themes in the book.

Also, Mary Anne is SO a maenad. That's why she could rile up everyone at Merlotte's so easily. :)

-DR

The HORROR!

The only horror in this post is that I am not PARTAKING IN THIS CUTENESS!!! AUGH!!






This is a Fennec Fox, the only species of fox you can have AS A PET. Seriously, why was I not informed of this before?

BRB you guys, I'm going to the pet store.
-DR

Can YOU tell the difference?

Can you tell the difference between a serial killer and a computer programmer? Take the quiz!

I got four out of ten. I guess that means if someone offers to show me their new code, I should politely decline, to say the least.

-DR

Christopher Lee is Knighted

Congratulations, Christopher Lee!

Lee was knighted last Friday through the Queen's Birthday Honours List. Lee got his start playing Dracula and other dastardly characters in a variety of Hammer films. Hammer movies have come to be known as classics of the horror genre, especially those starring Lee.

"New Moon" Trailer

Somehow, a scene that came across as melodramatic in the book managed to be even more over the top on film. I mean, I know I'm generalizing, but it was just a paper cut. Seriously. Anyway, doesn't it seem a bit backwards to leave Bella's luscious, vampire-bating self unsupervised in order to protect her? Nothing bad could happen with that...


Additionally, that's not even close to being the most ridiculous aspect of " New Moon." I mean, the whole suicide segment is too convoluted to even explain. I just hope there are some good car chase scenes in Italy, otherwise this whole movie will amount to watching Bella cry and write in her diary about how empty her soul is.


On the bright side, maybe all the the fans will get to see inside Bella's catatonic breakdown after Edward's departure. In the book are just four blank pages labeled with the month, but maybe we'll get to witness what actually happened in that time! Excellent! Like I don't do enough sitting around in my house that I'd want to watch Kristen Stewart do it as well.

Maybe they can throw in a subplot where Bella gets turned into a robot. That would definitely be something I'd watch, as long as they didn't build the robots using the same program they used for the werewolves. Horrible CGI.

However, I do like this poster. That's something, right?

Wow! Excellent!

Summer has officially commenced! The end of classes and Leaky Con (best weekend ever!) took up most of my spare time, but now that I'm back at school, I will most decidedly be back posting at least once a week.

I just checked through some old posts, and my Twilight/True Blood post actually has fifteen comments! I mean, some are not too pleased with my opinions, but some of you guys, who I hope are still reading, had some really interesting stuff to say. I'm just really glad people were interested, or offended, enough to write back. :)

It makes me feel warm and fuzzy, which may be detrimental to the horror level in my posts.

Yay!
DR

Kick-Ass!

School has taken over my soul for the last few weeks, but I'll be back soon with a review of Obsessed (2009) and maybe Skeleton Key(2004), finally?

But for now, I bring you: Kick-Ass.


All you need to know is that it involves an eleven year old assassin named Hit Girl. You know where I'll be Opening Night.

-DR

The Last House on the Left (2009)

\
The Last House on the Left is a remake now in theaters, featuring Garrett Dillahunt and Sara Paxton. The original was filmed in 1972. Both were produced by Wes Craven.

There was never any way this remake could ever exceed or even accurately reproduce the original. The 1972 version is a classic, but also a relic of its era, much like many other exploitation flicks, such as I Spit on Your Grave (1978) or Cannibal Holocaust (1980). These movies typify a certain gritty "reality" aesthetic that can't be sincerely reproduced.

The closest we come is Grindhouse (2007), which is intended as a homage and does an excellent job, but is irreconcilably different from its source material in that it is deeply ironic. It seems now, post Scream (1996), everything MUST be presented with a smirk in order to be taken seriously, as contradictory as that may seem. This can work quite well, such as in Behind the Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon (2006), but often this ironic winsomeness can choke the true terror out of a movie, leaving just a shell of self-satisfied hipness behind.

With the kitchy over-the-topness of exploitation movies pretty much ruled out, all that is left to work within is the Eli Roth School of Torture Porn. While both categories use about the same amount of gore, Saw (2004) and Hostel (2005) have somehow gotten a reputation for depicting much worse acts onscreen, I think mostly as a result of self-promotion.

This version of Last House has fallen onto the Saw bandwagon, like most modern horror movies. The unpredictable, almost dangerous edge of the original has been replaced by startlingly real effects that are nonetheless a bit lifeless.

One thing I have to address is the microwave scene. When I went to see this movie, people cheered and walked out saying how AWESOME and HARDCORE and GNARLY that had been, that the father paralyzed the main killer, then exploded his head in a microwave. As I listened, I wanted to tell them to see the original or Dead Alive (1992) or basically any classic gore fest, then come back and tell me what they thought of that scene.


It felt tacked on to me, like someone decided the last day of shooting that there wasn't enough gore, so they shot another few minutes for the end, so they wouldn't have to change the continuity. Not to be a party pooper, but a microwave wouldn't WORK if the door was still open, and anyway, why would he go through all the trouble of paralyzing the killer if he was just going to kill him immediately? It just felt poorly thought-out, and seemed too much like pandering for my taste.

Despite all my grumblings, however, there were some improvements over the original. For one, the levels of gore throughout were more even. In the original, as in many Revenge movies, especially I Spit on your Grave, the rape and torture scenes are often much, much worse than the revenge, so much so that one often feels cheated for the main character. If someone was brutalized for the first half of a movie, one would expect much more by way of revenge than just shooting their torturer a few times. The new version is much better about this, up until the very end.

In fact, the gore was quite good, especially in the second half. The garbage disposal scene, in which someone's hand is ground to pieces, actually made me feel a bit queasy. All of the actors, except for Sara Paxton as Mary, were excellent as well. Everyone gave it their all, screaming and flailing with the best of them, but at times Paxton looked lobotomized. She is literally expressionless as her friend Paige (Martha MacIsaac) is tormented and ultimately stabbed. I know she was supposed to planning her escape, but it got a bit ridiculous.

Also, I found it unusual that Craven changed the ending, allowing both Mary and the son of one of the killers, Justin (Spencer Treat Clark), to live. It even felt at times as if they were trying to imply the potential for a relationship between them! Would a girl who was raped and almost killed really go for the demented, sullen offspring of her attacker? Most likely not, I would think.

Besides this, their survival puts a completely different spin on the plot overall. Rather than the revenge of desperate parents, it becomes just another aspect of escape, a necessary evil more than the result of rage, and therefore much less effecting.

Overall: C

Drag Me To Hell (2009)

Does this seem just a little... racist to anyone else? I mean, Evil Gypsy Woman harasses Poor Innocent Blonde Girl! At least Stephen King's Thinner (the book, not the movie) was original, and gave its gypsies some humanity.

They say she's a Lamia, which could prove to be interesting, maybe. There's a rich history there, but I have a feeling the producers have done what seems so popular now, which is pick an interesting name from mythology, then proceed to write out all the interesting folklore aspects, turning the creature into something generically evil.

However, it IS called "Drag Me To Hell," so I HAVE to see it. I'm a sucker for a good title. :)

-DR

Blogging will re-commence in... Five... Four...

Hey folks!
I've been out of commission for some time, but I'm back, and ready to review! Expect Last House on the Left (2009) and Skeleton Key (2005) shortly.

-DR

Friday The 13th (2009)

Friday The 13th was directed by Marcus Nispel and stars Derek Mears as Jason.

This movie is NOT a remake of the original Friday (1980). I went into the movie assuming it was just another retread in the spirit of Rob Zombie's Halloween (2008), and was quite grateful it wasn't.

(By the way, watch the first fifteen minutes of Halloween, then throw it out and watch the original. There's a bit of interesting characterization for Michael Myers in the intro, then absolutely nothing else worth watching. I can't believe H2: Halloween 2 (2009) comes out this year. Rob Zombie's only good movie was The Devil's Rejects (2005).)

Anyway, I wasn't expecting much of the new Friday as a result. However, it picks up where the first left off, working as a sequel. I was glad they didn't attempt a remake, however, this creates problems for me, as does H2. If one makes sequels of the original, don't they then overlap with the existing sequels, cancelling them out? (And how could one ever cancel out Jason X (2001) aka "Jason in Space"?)

Besides the elimination of some good entertainment, it creates a problem. I'm not saying that Jason X is art, necessarily, but one can't simply eradicate so much material without creating weak spots in the canon, for the newer movies will unavoidably be informed by the older sequels. They're building on the foundation they are denying.

It strikes me as being a bit too close to fanfiction, or just fandom wish fulfilment, that if one can just ignore the pesky sequels, one can deny the basic cheesiness of the genre. This just doesn't work. Look at Prom Night (2008). By ignoring the source material, they alienated the built-in base of series fans. Conversely, the result was still too of the genre to be enjoyed by casual viewers. They got the worst of both worlds, and created a bomb the horror world views with shame.

However, the movie itself was entertaining, if uneven. It opens with the ending of the original, then shifts into modern day. A group of teens are camping near Chrystal Lake, they are stalked and killed, ect. The thing is, the killings are going too fast. No one will be left to finish out the movie. After twenty minutes, everyone is dead. However, this is really just the first act. ANOTHER group of teens (you'd think they'd start running out) go camping, joined by the brother of one of the girls, who's been kept alive by Jason because she looks like his mother.

The first movie could have been cut out, really, because it really functions mostly as clutter. The whole first twenty minutes could have been reduced into a flashback montage. I felt like the first act was mostly time filler, when I really wished they had used that time to elaborate upon the later killings.

Accordingly, gorehounds will be vastly disappointed. This movie does not try to top itself in any manner. I really think that, in this respect, it was written by someone who knew the conventions of the genre, but didn't really understand the purpose. Yes, people are supposed to be picked off one by one, but the draw is how this occurs. If everyone is chased all around for a few minutes, then stabbed, there is no reason to watch. One girl is burned alive, but when the camera focuses in on her face, she just has a few scrapes on her cheeks. It just doesn't make sense.

The lighting is so dark, as well, that one wouldn't be able to see any great effects anyway. I felt like they just didn't want to spend the money, so they just threw some Caro syrup on everybody, turned down the lights and asked them to scream. Darkness alone does not make something scary. Just look at The Burning (1981). The raft scene was done in broad daylight, yet it's really gorey and well done, especially for the Eighties.

Movie Itself: C+

Overall: D+