Name: JPRoscoe
Email:
Bio: Follow me on Twitter @JPRoscoe76! Loves all things pop-culture especially if it has a bit of a counter-culture twist. Plays video games (basically from the start when a neighbor brought home an Atari 2600), comic loving (for almost 30 years), and a true critic of movies. Enjoys the art house but also isn't afraid to let in one or two popular movies at the same time.
Posts by JPRoscoe:
Invaders from Mars (1953)
July 9th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: Invaders from Mars
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Genre(s): Sci-Fi/Fantasy/B-Movie
Release Date(s): April 22, 1953
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
I call dibs on the UFO!!!
David MacLean (Jimmy Hunt) sees a UFO land in the sand pit behind his house during a storm and notices his father (Leif Erickson) is acting strange after investigating the source. As more and more people seem to be acting different, David looks for help and anyone else who will believe him. Finding help from Dr. Pat Blake (Helena Carter) and Dr. Stuart Kelston (Arthur Franz), David is about to discover that the invaders from Mars have a plot to take over the world!
Directed by William Cameron Menzies, Invaders from Mars is a science-fiction UFO thriller. The film was the first UFO/alien picture to be released in color and received mixed reviews. Multiple versions of the film exist including the British release which eliminated dream aspect of the ending.
I will keep you as a slave to keep my forehead nice and shiny
I remember wanting to see Invaders from Mars after learning about it from a documentary. Like the terrifying Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the idea that only a few (in particular a child) knows the truth about a massive plot is a child’s nightmare. Invaders from Mars in that sense works as science-fiction, but also a horror film.
The movie is classic 1950s sci-fi. It could easily be watched by kids who will enjoy the idea of a kid as the hero, but the idea of no one believing him could be problematic for children by painting adults as the enemy. The amusing thing about the film is that the adults come to accept David’s “I saw a UFO” quite quickly. The first couple of people that David encounters of course reject his ideas, but most are already being controlled. It would be easy to have the theme of the story be adults simply don’t believe children, but everyone is subject to the alien invaders.
Sure, David…you can help us destroy the aliens…you have no military training, but what the hell…you’ve earned it!
The reason David is believed so easily could be that it is a poorly written movie, but it could be for a really smart reason. The whole story is supposed to be a dream in David’s mind. In a dream, David would be the main focus, scientists and the military would believe David, and he would be allowed to be around during the attack on the Martian ship. It doesn’t make real sense in the big picture, but if you are having a dream, are you usually sidelined? No. You are the main focus of the dream so of course David is part of the military forces.
The special effects of Invaders from Mars are actually quite good at points. The sand trap pits aren’t that impressive (with actors falling off screen when they are “captured”) but some of the aliens and the technology stuff looks good, and the bonus of having the film in color helps. The sets of the film are pretty weak with a generic UFO insides but some of the movie’s minimalistic sets are fun and fit that 1950s feel that movies like Mars Attacks! mocked.
Dang…Lothar gets all the chicks
Invaders from Mars is one of those good classic ’50s sci-fi films that still holds up today. It is a bit more of an Outer Limits or Twilight Zone feeling film stretched into long format and probably could have been shorter. The ideas and vision of the movie still hold up and the horror of the situation is something that is universal, even if you aren’t a child…you still remember that feeling of helplessness that only you can see what is really going on. The movie was remade in 1986 (which I actually saw before this film), and it isn’t as good as the original movie simply because it lost some of its charm…but it does have more glitz and special effects. The invaders are here…and unstoppable!
Related Links:
Saw (2004)
July 7th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: Saw
Studio: Evolution Entertainment
Genre(s): Horror
Release Date(s): January 19, 2004 (Sundance Film Festival)/October 29, 2004
MPAA Rating: R
Should we try to investigate the body lying in the middle of the floor? Nah…
Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and Adam Stanheight (Leigh Whannell) wake up in a dilapidated bathroom, both chained to the wall, and neither one knowing how they got there. Gordon learns that his wife Alison (Monica Potter) and his daughter Diana (Makenzie Vegas) are going to be killed unless he kills Adam. When Gordon realizes that he’s a prisoner of a killer named Jigsaw, Gordon recalls how his path with Jigsaw crossed before in an investigation involving Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover) and Detective Steven Sing (Ken Leung). Gordon realizes Jigsaw is dangerous and saving his wife and child might mean playing Jigsaw’s games.
Written and directed by James Wan, Saw is a horror survival film. The movie was a long-form adaptation of Wan’s short 2003 film by the same name. The movie received negative reviews but became a massive box office success.
The first time I saw Saw, I hated it so I gave it a second chance…it was still a no-go. The movie received lots of comparisons to Seven (which also featured a killer preying on sinners) and in both films, the killer used extreme measures. In Seven, the script and acting were quite tight and strong…here, both are loose and sloppy.
I would rather play Boggle, Mr. Jigsaw
Visually, Wan does a decent job with a low budget and confined quarters of the bathroom set. There isn’t much that can be done in the small set but it is utilized well. The means of death in Saw films are always the highlights and this movie doesn’t have a ton of crazy deaths like later films due to the budget, though the trap-jaw is cool.
*****Spoiler Alert***** The plot of Saw is where some of the problems start popping up. The movie’s written in a way that it is a thriller, but it misses a lot of the thrills through the characters’ stupidity (and the writer believes the members of the audience are just as dumb). You get unnecessary introductions of both Jigsaw aka John (Tobin Bell) and Zep Hindle (Michael Emerson) in a flashback and unless they are somehow involved with the story it makes no sense. You also get characters who are locked up that make no effort to investigate a body lying on the floor (which no one can see breathing)…plus, some of the worse police procedural by Glover and Leung.
Cary Elwes trying out for Dawn of the Dead…and acting like a zombie
Where Saw really fails however is in the acting. I have like Cary Elwes before in films like The Princess Bride, but here, he can’t act his way out of a bag. His scenes are awful…the fear…the concerned…the worry…the desperation…it is all over acted and painful to watch. Leigh Whannell also rivals Elwes lack of acting, but actually is a bit better…but his “fake” poison death is so laughable that I don’t know who he thought it would trick.
This style of film really boosted the torture-porn style of film that came out of this series. This movie didn’t really capitalize on the “porn” aspect of the film (aka lots of nudity and young women being killed), but the torture is definitely there…movies like Hostel and even The Human Centipede kind of followed this gruesome style. Saw was followed by Saw II in 2005.
Related Links:
Saw II (2005)
July 7th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: Saw II
Studio: Twisted Pictures
Genre(s): Horror
Release Date(s): October 28, 2005
MPAA Rating: R
Gee, you got me. I’m not known for traps or anything…
Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is back with a new game! When he is captured by police, Jigsaw reveals he has captured the lead officer’s son Daniel (Erik Knudsen) and is holding him prisoner in his deadly obstacle course along with seven other prisoners. Daniel and the other prisoners discover that they are playing with a veteran of Jigsaw’s games; Amanda (Shawnee Smith) has been forced to play Jigsaw’s demented game again after surviving a previous encounter. With poison coursing through their veins, they must face their demons if they hope to escape. Meanwhile, Daniel’s father Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) learns that he has to play by Jigsaw’s demands if he hopes to see his son again…and breaking the rules could cost Daniel his life.
Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, Saw II is a horror survival thriller. Following Saw from 2004, the movie was a blockbuster at the theaters despite poor reviews from critics.
I bet she’s really just upset that after all this she’s going to need a tetanus shot
I didn’t enjoy Saw that much. I thought that the film was poorly acted, had obnoxious characters, and ruined opportunities for decent plot twists through poor writing. Saw II has a lot of the same problems, but I think it is actually a better movie.
Saw II kind of sets up the format of the sequels. Saw had a minimal number of “victims” and this format with more characters allowed for more twisted deaths. Here, we have people burning to death, shot, and my particular cringe-worthy favorite…the pit of syringes. The pit didn’t really kill anyone but the idea hurt like hell. The house of horrors that Jigsaw has set-up also involves a twist like the previous film.
*****Spoiler Alert***** The events in the house have already happened. Jigsaw’s real game was with Matthews (a dirty cop) and if he could follow the rules. I felt this twist was handled better than the body on the floor in the first film. I wasn’t shocked that the house happened early, but I did not expect Matthew’s son to be in the room the whole time. I liked this twist a little better, but a lot of it can be credited to the actors.
Saw II was the actually inspiration for “The Room Where It Happens” from Hamilton…
The actors in this film are somewhat better than the awful performances by Cary Elwes and Leigh Whannell, but it the characters stupidity which works against the plot. The exploits of Jigsaw at this point are fairly published apparently (most of the characters have heard of him), and it seems like everyone (including the police) must realize that Jigsaw plays games. What police would rush into a house without securing the area first? Why would anyone crawl into a furnace without some question…or not question the words that Jigsaw is using more? It doesn’t make much sense and hurts the plot.
Visually, I have to admit that Saw was more creative and interesting than this sequel. The horrors of Jigsaw’s torture are better visually, but the actual look of the movie is not as good. I do like however that the movie does wrap around back to the original film and we get to visit Jigsaw’s original torture bathroom.
Saw II shows a small, slight improvement in the Saw series over the first film. I know that I probably am in the minority in that opinion, but I found this movie tolerable while the first film was borderline unwatchable due to its acting and stupid characters. Saw II was followed by Saw III in 2006.
Related Links:
The Horse Soldiers (1959)
July 7th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: The Horse Soldiers
Studio: The Mirisch Corporation
Genre(s): Western/War/Action/Adventure
Release Date(s): June 17, 1959 (Premiere)/July 1959 (US)
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
Sally Forth!
The Civil War is ranging, and Colonel John Marlowe (John Wayne) has been given a covert assignment with his soldiers to enter the South and disrupt their supply chains while covertly cutting a path through the land. Marlowe finds himself forced to bring a medical doctor named Major Henry Kendall (William Holden) who has opinions on Marlowe’s technique and goals. Marlowe is forced to take a Southern woman named Miss Hannah Hunter (Constance Towers) as a prisoner to prevent her from revealing the soldier’s assignment and continues to pound south. The Confederacy is catching up to Marlowe and his soldiers…can they make it out alive?
Directed by John Ford, The Horse Soldiers is a Civil War adventure film. The movie adapts the 1956 novel by Harold Sinclair. It received positive reviews but was considered a commercial failure.
I never had a John Wayne love. I always found his movies stodgy and predictable. While The Horse Soldiers fits into this mold, the movie does has its moments and some interesting history tied to it.
Do you like my ascot?
The movie is loosely based on Grierson’s Raid (April 17, 1863-May 2, 1863) which included the Battle of Newton’s Station (April 24, 1863). The movie and the book it was based on was fictionalized and the story isn’t historically accurate but just borrows some events. The film has a weird uneven nature where it can’t seem to figure out if the movie is about the butting of heads between Marlowe and Kendell, the war, or Miss Hunter. It has a cheesy forced “romance” thrown in between Wayne and Towers (when it feels like script-wise it should have been Holden). The movie also ends before it was supposed to due to the death of a stuntman named Fred Kennedy and plans to show Marlowe in Baton Rouge were scrapped.
There is decent chemistry between Wayne and Holden when they are adversaries, but there is no chemistry between Wayne and Towers…which makes the “I’m in love with you” declaration all the more funny and inappropriate. Tennis player Althea Gibson takes on the role of Tower’s slave Lukey and surprisingly was able to push to get the script modified (somewhat) to change the cliché slave dialect of character.
Wait…you what? Love me? Since like what…15 minutes ago? I’m confused.
The movie does look pretty good. I do prefer Wayne’s Western settings, but the style and look of the film does have a bit of that southern feel. It was shot on location around Louisiana and Mississippi.
The Horse Soldiers is what you’d expect from a John Wayne movie. I prefer the Civil War setting to a World War II movie, but it always feels like you could drop John Wayne in any location, any time, and he’d still be the same actor and character. If you are a fan of Wayne, the movie is one of his better films (simply on production quality), and John Ford always makes an interesting picture. March onward with The Horse Soldiers!
Shane (1953)
July 7th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: Shane
Studio: Paramount Pictures
Genre(s): Western/Action/Adventure
Release Date(s): April 23, 1953
MPAA Rating: Not Rated
The trailer if Shane was made in 1989: Bad guys better watch out when Shane comes to town…because they’re about to be smoked! Starring Sylvester Stallone
In the Wyoming Territory, trouble is brewing. The homesteaders are finding themselves at odds with the ranchers…with both laying claim to the land. When a mysterious man named Shane (Alan Ladd) encounters a farmer named Joe Starrett (Van Heflin), his wife Marian (Jean Arthur), and their son Joey (Brandon De Wilde), Shane finds himself embedded in the battle. Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer) intends to force the homesteaders out…even if it means bringing in a hired gun named Jack Wilson (Jack Palance) to do it. Shane finds his past catching up with him, and a fight is simmering.
Directed by George Stevens, Shane is a Western action-adventure. The movie adapts the 1949 novel Shane by Jack Schaefer which was originally published in Argosy in 1946 and called Rider from Nowhere. The film won an Academy Award for Best Cinematography—Color with nominations for Best Supporting Actor (Brandon De Wilde and Jack Palance), Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay. It was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress in 19993.
I first saw Shane in middle school after we read a shortened adaption of the novel. I can remember the class making fun of the ending of the film with us insinuating an affair between the mother and Shane (the teacher wasn’t happy). I can’t “not” think of this when watching Shane. It is a good movie covering interesting issues which becomes even more relevant as time goes on.
Want to see me do a one-armed push-up?
The story has its basis in the Johnson County War from 1892 where homesteaders battled cattlemen, but it brings up a larger issue of “who deserves the land”. The cattlemen think they tamed it, but it is rightly put out that there were people there before the cattlemen. The Native Americans are kind of glossed over, but it is implied that they are there. In addition to this there is a strange “southern” storyline embedded in the story. It is post-Civil War and Stonewall (one the hero homesteaders) is a former Confederate soldier. The bad guy (aka Jack Palance) ridicules the south and their loss…this is a strange turn today when the idea of the character being rebels is a negative thing. Palance’s character is kind of speaking today’s perception of the Civil War.
Alan Ladd plays the noble and mysterious Shane that obviously has a sordid past. In the film he’s very noble and does the right thing at a cost. While Brandon De Wilde is good, he’s pretty annoying (he’s supposed to be, he’s a kid). He feels like a bit of a precursor to Scout from To Kill a Mockingbird in that he’s see the story with “pure eyes” and not understanding all that he’s seeing. The film is largely drafted around his perspective of the events. Jack Palance does get the loathsome Jack Wilson down, but in a small part where he contradicts Rufus Ryker’s perception that “they” will have to kill the homesteaders, he gives a little more depth to what could have been a stock character.
“Come back, Shane…Mother has been saying weird things about you in her sleep!”
The movie looks great. The Jackson Hole location has the Grand Tetons looming in the background and the scenery feels vast and open. It goes a long way in exploring what it must have been like for homesteaders and cattle ranchers who took to the area early in American history. The core set of the Starrett’s cabin still exists in ruins and is a tourist attraction.
Shane is a classic Western and often considered one of the best Westerns. It is simple in its story, but the bigger issues looming in the undercurrent of the story are what makes the film interesting. The classic ending with Shane riding off and Joey yelling for him to come back feels true…it would be good for Shane to come back. Everyone needs someone like Shane.
Scream, Queen!: My Nightmare on Elm Street (2019)
July 5th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: Scream, Queen!: My Nightmare on Elm Street
Studio: The End Productions
Genre(s): Documentary/Horror
Release Date(s): April 5, 2019 (Cleveland International Film Festival)/March 3, 2020 (DVD)
MPAA Rating: Unrated
Gingerly taking his place among horror history
Mark Patton came from a small town and went to New York City to change his life. Finding fame on the stage in Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean which was turned into a major picture by Robert Altman. Going to Hollywood, Mark Patton where he met Timothy Patrick Murphy and began a relationship. When he was cast as the lead in the big budget sequel A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, he thought his career was made…but a homoerotic streak in the script derailed his career, outed him, and made working in a time when homosexuality was closely tied to the AIDS epidemic an impossibility. This is Mark’s story…his Nightmare on Elm Street.
Directed by Roman Chimienti and Tyler Jensen, Scream, Queen!: My Nightmare on Elm Street is a horror LGBTQ documentary. The film premiered at the Cleveland International Film Festival and was met with average reviews.
I remember seeing A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge as a kid and thinking…this is weird. It didn’t feel like A Nightmare on Elm Street and wasn’t as Freddy heavy. Of course rewatching the movie later, you get why there is something different about the story and about Jesse. This is the story of the effect of A Nightmare on Elm Street 2’s decisions.
Horror fans are different…totally different tone than some other conventions
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 had a male lead who was a “damsel in distress”. It wasn’t typical for horror films which often had female leads, nudity, and were pretty “anti-gay” like many movies and shows at the time, and the fact that A Nightmare on Elm Street was such a big hit brought a lot of attention to the sequel. David Chaskin’s script flips this and has Jesse fighting a monster inside of him. It isn’t very subtle, and much of the debate comes from where Chaskin was going with it.
Mark Patton tries to explain his story and has a lot of venom toward David Chaskin. The documentary has a struggle to tell the story and do it smoothly. It is a little jarring and all over the place at times. The movie wants to focus on A Nightmare on Elm Street, but telling Mark’s life is necessary for context…it just feels like it needed more base or streamline the chain of events better before getting to the Nightmare on Elm Street stuff and clearer picture of Mark’s path after the film dealing with the fallout.
Started to get a bit awkward
The film’s look at fandom is an interesting look. I’ve always thought it must be strange for actors having to be someone that they portrayed years ago because of often niche fanbases. The movie explores the flipside of fandom where there is often there is an open acceptance of people in horror film communities, but there is also a less accepting side…but that in general is life. It is changing and is always changing, and the movie does seem to get that.
The movie is a catharsis for Mark Patton and that is good. He is able to put some demons of his past officially in the past and that is a benefit from the film. The documentary is tackling a strange aspect of an over thirty year old horror film and trying to put it into a modern context which isn’t always possible. It wraps it all up with reflection in modern times and how this fear could spread again without keeping in check, but it is a bit of a rocky road to get there.
Related Links:
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
July 4th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: Inglourious Basterds
Studio: A Band Apart
Genre(s): Action/Adventure/Drama
Release Date(s): May 20, 2009 (Cannes)/August 21, 2009 (US)
MPAA Rating: R
Oh yes, revenge will be mine
Hitler and the Third Reich have gutted the European countryside and sent family scrambling for safety. When Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) escapes the slaughter of her family by SS-Standartenführer Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) in 1941, she reestablishes herself at a movie theater in Paris where she begins to plot her revenge. In 1944, Hitler’s forces are being picked off by a group known as the Basterds. Led by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), the Basterds love to kill Nazis…and they are good at it. When the Allied forces get word that a special showing of a German propaganda picture is scheduled for Paris, the Basterds are sent in…but Shosanna is unknowing plotting her own revenge.
Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds is a World War II action revenge-fantasy. Following Tarantino’s Death Proof in 2007, the film takes its title from the 1978 Enzo G. Castellari film Quel maledetto treno bilndato…aka The Inglorious Bastards. The film received praise from critics and won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor (Waltz) with nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Sound Mixing, and Best Sound Editing.
“Can’t a Nazi killer go into a Nazi bar without it being problem, guy?”
After being such a big influence in the 1990s, for me, Quentin Tarantino became a bit hit-or-miss. I loved his dialogue (though everyone tried to copy it), and I loved some of his visionary retro style…but I also think he got a bit full of himself and believed some of his own press. That being said, he is still a talented filmmaker, and I know it is sacrilegious to many of his fans, but Inglourious Basterds isn’t one of my favorites of his movies. A ******spoiler alert****** is in effect for the rest of the review.
Some people have a problem that Inglourious Basterds is a revenge fantasy. It of course doesn’t market this, but a fictitious movie can do what it wants…including kill Hitler. If the rest of the story isn’t true, why does the ending have to be historically accurate? The movie tries to spring it as a surprise in the line that you think Shosanna and the Basterds’ plans are going to collide and cancel each other out…instead they multiply each other. This doesn’t bother me.
“Ms. von Hammersmark…you knew you were going to have to give me your foot…this IS a Quentin Tarantino film…”
What does bother me is that it seems like Tarantino had ideas for some incredible (and tense) scenes, but didn’t have a ton of connective tissue with the story. The opening scene, the restaurant scene, the bar scene, and the questioning of Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) are fantastic…but the whole movie largely feels episodic and not in a good classic serial way.
The cast is great. Mélanie Laurent has some great scenes which make me wish she was a bigger breakout from the film. Brad Pitt gets to go full redneck as Raine and is joined with Eli Roth, Michael Fassbender, Til Schweiger, Samm Levine, and The Office’s B.J. Novak (which was a really odd casting choice at the time the film was made). The scene-stealer of course is Christoph Waltz who almost came from relative obscurity on an international and got the cadence and tone of Tarantino’s character.
The Basterds will be back…in “Still Basterds After All These Years”
The visuals are another problematic aspect of the film. I sometimes feel that Tarantino can’t help but go Tarantino…and he doesn’t always need to. Little breakaways from the script like the explanation of the flammability of nitrate film using a film strip, titles, and other aspects feel gimmicky and the dialogue of the film holds together without these rather distracting sequences. The film’s violence and humor comes naturally and doesn’t need to be added to.
Inglourious Basterds is a Tarantino film I can only watch every great once in a while. Often listed as a “favorite” by fans, I feel I’m in the minority in just feeling ok to good about Inglourious Basterds. I recognize the strength of the dialogue and scenes, but I want more meat from the script. It could have been a fantastic movie instead of just a good movie. Tarantino followed Inglourious Basterds with Django Unchained in 2012.
Related Links:
The 82nd Academy Award Nominations
Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
June 30th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: The Exorcist II: The Heretic
Studio: Warner Bros.
Genre(s): Horror
Release Date(s): June 17, 1977
MPAA Rating: R
No matter how many people support her, Louise is struggling in this role
Philip Lamont (Richard Burton) is questioning his faith after an exorcism. When he is assigned to investigate the death of Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) during an exorcism, Lamont finds that the demon Pazuzu might still have control of his victim Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair). Lamont begins to work with Regan’s doctor Gene Tuskin (Louise Fletcher) to reach into Linda’s past and find a way to defeat the demon itself.
Directed by John Boorman, Exorcist II: The Heretic was the follow up to the award winning horror film The Exorcist of 1973. The Exorcist author William Peter Blatty and director William Friedken distanced themselves from this film and the movie was panned by critics. Exorcist II: The Heretic often makes it way on to “Worst Of” lists and is sometimes called one of the worst sequels of all time.
Exorcist II: The Heretic is a mess. With barely any of the cast returning, the movie barely feels like a real sequel and actually hurts the original film. The movie was hurt by tons of production problems, reshoots, and though this story shows flashbacks of Merrin’s original exorcism mentioned in The Exorcist, events in the film do not mesh with the two prequels released in 2004 and 2005.
I’m practicing my roar for The Lion King
Exorcist II: The Heretic tries way too hard. The story is far too complex with psychic ability, time regression, and possession. The movie isn’t scary, and it isn’t shocking like The Exorcist. Instead, it is a big bore. What had been a great story with complex characters is dumbed down to a generic story without much going on it but still too complex to really understand. It reaches the epitome of bad with Regan exorcising Pazuzu in an African ritual complete with locusts.
While The Exorcist was filled with great performances, Exorcist II was filled with awful performances. Burton’s role was a coveted role with Jon Voight, Christopher Walken, David Carradine, and Jack Nicholson considered, but most reports had Burton drinking heavily through the film’s production. Louise Fletcher got the role due to her success in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and as a result the role of Dr. Tuskin originally written as a male became a female. Linda Blair is awful as the teenage Regan (complete with psychic abilities), and she has stated that she regrets the role. One of the only other actors to return from the original film was Kitty Winn who randomly kills herself under Pazuzu’s control. The movie also features James Earl Jones as the adult Kokumo the boy saved by Merrin and Ned Beatty as a pilot.
It isn’t my fault I had a couple drinks and Pazuzu looked hot
Visually, Exorcist II: The Heretics fails as well. The Exorcist was one of the initial film to kick off “the blockbuster” and part of the reason was the insane special effects. Here we get little impressive visuals and weird set location shots…gone are the projectile vomit and all you get is locusts in its place.
Exorcist II: The Heretic is an awful movie. It is long, poorly made, and a bad follow-up to a great movie. Watching Exorcist II: The Heretic will probably leave a bad taste in your mouth, but try to remember how great of a movie The Exorcist was. Exorcist II: The Heretic is followed by The Exorcist III in 1990.
Related Links:
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005)
The Exorcist III (1990)
June 30th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: The Exorcist III
Studio: Morgan Creek Productions
Genre(s): Horror
Release Date(s): October 1989 (MIFED Film Market)/August 17, 1990 (US)
MPAA Rating: R
Why does it feel like somebody’s watching me?
A child is found ritually murdered, and when a priest also is killed in a strange fashion, Detective William F. Kinderman (George C. Scott) believes a serial killer is active mimicking the action of the executed murderer known as the Gemini Killer (Brad Dourif). When tragedy strikes Kinderman’s friend Father Joseph Dyer (Ed Flanders), Kinderman discovers that the horrors might be linked to the hospital and a patient that has the appearance of Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller). Unfortunately, Karras died years ago, and Kinderman must discover the identity of the man in Cell #11 and his ties to the Gemini Killer.
Written and directed by William Peter Blatty, The Exorcist III is a supernatural horror. Following (and disregarding) Exorcist II: The Heretic from 1977, the movie adapts Blatty’s 1983 novel Legion. The film premiered at the MIFED Film Market in October of 1989, but it did not receive a release until August 1990. The film was released to mixed to negative reviews and George C. Scott received a nomination for a Razzie for Worst Actor. Since the film’s release, The Exorcist III has gained a cult following.
The Exorcist was legendary. Exorcist II was forgettable. The Exorcist III was a movie with extremely mixed results. Containing some truly horrific moments, the film sometimes succeeds in scares but also is loaded with laughs…some intentional and some unintentional.
Great…now I just imagine the afterlife with Patrick Ewing and Fabio as angels
The story is all over the place and feels hacked up at points. Blatty battled with the filmmakers over control of the film and a “Director’s Cut” was released in 2016 just before Blatty’s death in 2016. The confusion over the plans for the film seem to hurt the film. There are moments of inspiration (with the jumping between Karras and the Gemini Killer), and the killings are terrifying. It feels like there is a good movie inside The Exorcist III, but it doesn’t seem to make it out of the mess.
George C. Scott both hurts the movie and helps the movie. He is bombastic and over-acting in most of his scenes. The dialogue and the style of his acting don’t match up, but it is amusing. Ed Flanders and Scott have an almost vaudevillian act between them, and Scott Wilson’s broken psychiatrist feels like he is in a different movie. Brad Dourif is a scene stealer, but it is also great to see Jason Miller back. I wish Scott’s character’s wife Zohra Lampert had been in more of the film (I loved her in Let’s Scare Jessica to Death), and I love Nancy Fish as the overacting nurse that almost rival’s Scott’s acting. The movie also features cameos by Samuel L. Jackson, C. Everett Koop, Larry King, Harry Carey Jr., Patrick Ewing, and Fabio.
Still one of the best jumps…even (or especially) if you know it is coming
The movie also is a painful miss because there are some fantastic scares. The visuals of the old people climbing on the ceiling is laugh-worthy, but there is also something terrifying about it. The dream sequence is odd but also so dream-like that it feels real (and the crucifix’s eyes opening is chilling). The movie’s greatest jump is a long, extended scene involving a nurse on a quiet night. It is a great jump that even scares when you know it is coming.
The Exorcist III could have been great. It has its moments, and it is watchable because of some moments of sheer terror. I wish that movie could have made it over the hump to be a worthy sequel to The Exorcist (it still is worlds better than Exorcist II). The Exorcist III was followed by two prequel movies (due to disputes in production) Exorcist: The Beginning in 2004 by Renny Harlin and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist in 2005 by Paul Schrader.
Related Links:
Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005)
John Wick: Chapter 3—Parabellum (2019)
June 30th, 2020Movie Info
Movie Name: John Wick: Chapter 3—Parabellum
Studio: Lionsgate
Genre(s): Action/Adventure
Release Date(s): May 15, 2019 (UK)/May 17, 2019 (US)
MPAA Rating: R
Well…I guess you can bring knives to a gun fight
John Wick is on the run. Injured, weaponless, and with a $14 million dollar bounty on his head, Wick is in more trouble than he ever experienced. Breaking the rules of the Continental has consequences, and Wick and those who help him like Winston (Ian McShane), the Bowery King (Laurence Fishburne), and the Director (Anjelica Huston) will pay the price when an Adjudicator (Asia Kate Dillon) is sent by the High Table to collect. Wick finds himself going overseas and seeking out Sofia (Halle Berry) for a chance at finding a way out…but even John Wick can’t make it through what he’ll face unscathed.
Directed by Chad Stahelski, John Wick: Chapter 3—Parabellum (or simply John Wick 3) is an action-adventure thriller. Following John Wick: Chapter 2 in 2017, the movie was well received and the highest grossing entry in the series.
I like John Wick. I saw the first one in the theater and loved the all-out craziness of the movie. The fighting was both nonsensical and extremely smart at the same time. John Wick: Chapter 2 opened up the story more and actually progressed the events instead of simply making John Wick again. John Wick: Chapter 3—Parabellum continues the story, but doesn’t seem to have the same impact.
I call my dog “Crotch-Biter”
The movie starts immediately after John Wick: Chapter 2 with Wick having one hour to get himself in order to go on the run. Through the course of the movie we learn more of the working of the High Table and some “secret origin” aspects of John Wick’s character. The problem with this entry opposed to the other entries is that the story’s pacing is a little off. The Morocco portions of the movie kind of slow, and the sword fight at the end goes on too long since there isn’t a lot of variety to it. It is problematic, but still an entertaining action film.
Keanu Reeves continues to bring it in the movie. He grumbles and groans and takes a beating (multiple times), but he of course (kind of) comes out on top by the end…or at least he lives. Most of Reeves’ supporting cast returns like Ian McShane, Laurence Fishburne, Lance Reddick, and Ian McShane. The film probably introduces too many characters with Asia Kate Dillon, Anjelica Huston, Jerome Flynn, and Saïd Taghmaoui. Mark Dacascos plays the big baddy, and it feels like Halle Berry is set-up for a spin-off or at least the sequel.
Yes…I have the sword…again
Like previous entries, the action is one of the biggest draws for a John Wick movie and John Wick: Chapter 3 doesn’t disappoint. The fighting is still smooth and natural and the opening sequence fight has a lot of variety. The type of fighting drags a little at the end, but the look and the feel of the movie remain strong. I do like that the movie got out of New York City, and the desert looked fantastic, but part of John Wick is that dirty, gritty NYC scene that propels the movie.
John Wick: Chapter 3—Parabellum won’t really disappoint fans of the series, but I feel it is a slight stumble. The cliffhanger ending of John Wick: Chapter 2 was a shocker, but this cliffhanger feels a bit more expected. John Wick will return, but it seems like upping the ante each time will be difficult. John Wick: Chapter 3—Parabellum is followed by John Wick: Chapter 4 in 2022.
Related Links:
