Brainstorm (1983)

Title: Brainstorm (1983)

Director: Douglas Trumbull

Cast: Christopher Walken, Natalie Wood, Louise Fletcher, Cliff Robertson, Jason Lively

Review:

Troubled productions, they always have an interesting story behind them. Reading about these fiascos lets us see the nature of Hollywood filmmaking, and how frustrating and money oriented it can all be. I’ve read various books on filmmaking, and trust me; all of them have a very acid outlook on Hollywood. Take for example David Mamet’s book on his experiences in Hollywood filmmaking called Bambi vs. Godzilla. The title alone let’s you see the kind of battle you can expect while making a Hollywood production. You are Bambi and the Hollywood system is Godzilla. I’ve never read a book with a more acid hatred for Hollywood then that one. And it was written by a writer experienced in both writing and directing various big budget Hollywood films! These books will always tell you how frustrating making a full length multi-million dollar feature film can be, if you want to get into that game, you gotta really want to be in that game because it can swallow you whole and then spit you’re puny little Bambi carcass out. Yes my friends, Hollywood can be one cruel mother for those working behind the scenes. Case in point: Douglas Trumbull and Brainstorm, a film with an original concept that half way through completion was shut down by the studio. Why did the studio want to shut down Trumbull’s film?  

In Brainstorm we meet a group of scientists that are experimenting with a new kind of machine, a helmet that can record whatever your experience. The innovative part of the whole thing is that someone else can later watch the recording and relive the experience, all sensory input included. This means that you can smell, see, hear and feel anything the original person recorded! Commercial and military applications immediately abound for an invention like this one. But like any new invention, there’s always a dark side, for example, what happens when someone decides to record their death? And what happens when someone wants to play that recording? Would you want to experience what it feels like to have a heart attack, or to die? Well, these are some of the questions that arise when one of the scientists decides to record her death. The inevitable question pops up: can this new invention record what happens after death?

When Brainstorm was made it was an extremely original concept, there had been nothing like it before. Correct me if I’m wrong my dear readers, but I can’t remember anything like Brainstorm before it was made. After Brainstorm is another story, after it various films have copied it’s premise, which reveals Brainstorms influential nature. For example we have Kathryn Bigelow’s Strange Days (1995) the first one that pops to mind. I’ve always seen Strange Days as a remake of Brainstorm because it plays with some of the same ideas and situations, but takes things a bit further and is a more complete film in my opinion, I highly recommend that one. There have been other films about machines that explore the human mind, for example, Dreamscape (1984), The Cell (2000), Videodrome (1983) and The Lawnmower Man (1992), but Brainstorm is unique because it presents us with the idea of a head piece that can record your experience. But what if someone decides to record a murder, or a torture? What if someone forces you to watch these recordings? Brainstorm explores these possibilities, especially the possibility of having to experience someone’s death. Strange Days explores that idea, but is a bit more intense, it goes more into the dark side of the techonology. In fact, Strange Days can be seen as a sequel because it shows us a world in which this technology has become common; there’s even a black market for recordings with highly sexual and violent content!

In Brainstorm the technology hasn’t gone to the mass market yet, it’s still on its experimental phase. Scientists are still trying to figure the invention out, work out the bugs; they still don’t know what they got in their hands. But Brainstorm does go into this tangent that I liked. In the film, Christopher Walken’s character is going through a divorce, but in order to save his marriage, he makes a recording of these beautiful memories he conjures up in his mind of him and his wife falling in love for the first time, which helps them fall in love all over again. Reminded of what they once had, they reunite, really tender moments there, loved that about it. Walken and Natlie Wood (the actress who played Walken’s wife in the film) really achieved an onscreen chemistry that worked; their moments are some of the sweetest in the whole film. So the film is not only about technology and its possible applications, but also about saving a marriage and rekindling a love that was once alive.  

  

There is this moment in Brainstorm where the scientists perform a show for the investors to try and “knock their socks off”, so they can really get a taste of what the technology can do. Those scenes felt like I was visiting the website for Google Glass. Yes my friends, it looks like technology is once again catching up with our imaginations! You don’t know what Google Glass is? Well, look it up, it’s this new thing that they are cooking up, basically, it’s these glasses you wear that can record anything you are seeing in an extremely similar fashion to the technology presented in Brainstorm. The only difference between Google Glass and the technology presented in Brainstorm is that while in Brainstorm you can relive all of the sensory input including smell, touch and feel, with Google Glass we can only relive the visual and auditory aspects of someone else’s experience. But I’m wondering if it’s only a manner of time before that happens! So anyhow, Brainstorm was kind of prophetic in that way. Anyways, the Google Glass thing (same as the technology in the film) is still on its prototype phase, only a few people in the world where chosen to use it to test them out and see how they perform in the real world. If it all works out, Im sure we’ll be seeing a lot more of these glasses soon. Something similar to Google Glass also showed up in Iron Man 3 (2013), there's a couple of scenes in which Iron Man actually controls his suits with the help of these ultra technological glasses.

But going back to why Brainstorm was such a fiasco, well what happened was that Natalie Wood (one of the main actresses in the film) died during filming, MGM seeing an opportunity to make some money shut down the film and filed an insurance claim, hoping to get some of that insurance money. At the time, the guys running MGM though it would be more of a benefit to them to claim their insurance money then finish a film that was already midway through completion! MGM claimed that because of the death of one of its main stars, it was impossible to finish the film; which was a flat out lie, because most of the film had already been shot, MGM just wanted to get their insurance money. So whatever, their claim was denied and Douglas Trumbull managed to finish his movie by using a body double and rewriting parts of the script. But the film was destined to be a failure, MGM didn’t promote it enough and only released it in a minimum amount of screens, so we can chalk up this films failure to a vengeful movie studio. But the film still lives on, it’s been released on various formats and has currently been released on Blue Ray and DVD, as it deserves to. This film was directed by Douglas Trumbull, the effects genius who was responsible for some of the brilliant photographic effects work in films like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and Blade Runner (1982). Sadly, his sour experience with making Brainstorm made Trumbull give his back to Hollywood, he vowed never to make a huge Hollywood film ever again. And he’s kept his promise. In the end, Brainstorm is a movie that explores some interesting themes and philosophical ideas, my only gripe with it is that the ending felt a little inconclusive, probably due to Natalie Woods death, but as it is, you want to know what was going to happen to these characters after the shit storm they created, the films abrupt end leaves us wanting more. I guess the best thing you can do is watch Brainstorm and Strange Days back to back, you’ll feel like you’re watching more or less two films that take place in similar worlds

Rating:  4 out of 5 

Batman Returns (1992)

Title: Batman Returns (1992)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Danny DeVito

Review:

I watched Batman Returns back in 1992 when it first hit theaters and was wowed out of my skin by it; my teenage mind couldn’t take so much coolness! Watching it today, I still think it’s a fantastic film that is in many ways superior to the first one. And that was no easy task either, the first one has a magic all it’s own. But this sequel was a bigger production with a bigger budget. I mean for it’s time, this film was huge! For Batman Returns, the budget was doubled, which gave director Tim Burton an even bigger arena to play in then he had with his first take on the character in Batman (1989). This doubling of the films budget is understandable; it is actually standard operation procedure for Hollywood. When a film makes it ultra big (the way Burton’s first Batman film did) then Hollywood is programmed to automatically give audiences something bigger and better the second time around. An example of this would be Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984), a film that ended up being bigger and louder then its predecessor; and this was certainly the case with Batman Returns, the sets they built for this film took up 50% of Warner Bros. studio lots! Taking in consideration how sometimes huge productions can become huge disasters as well, did lightning hit twice this second time around?

I’d say that yes, this film is as good as its predecessor, and maybe even superior to it. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Tim Burton was given way more creative freedom with this second film. Considering how well Burton did with the first film, and how much money it made, Warner Brothers let Burton do whatever the hell he wanted with this sequel. They even pronounced him full on producer. In fact, Burton accepted to work on this sequel only if his specifications were met, and they were. Whole characters were completely exorcised from the script and many re-writes were made. For example, the character of Harvey Dent (a.k.a. Two Face) was taken out and replaced by an entirely original character called Max Shreck, a millionaire tycoon/business man who wants screw Gotham City over. The inclusion of Batman’s sidekick Robin was supposed to happen on this film, but at the request of Burton he was taken out because there were too many characters on the film, a smart move on Burton’s part if you ask me. This could have easily turned into another Batman and Robin (1997) But under the able hands of Tim Burton, it was smooth trails for this film. By the way, did you guys know that Marlon Wayan’s almost played Robin on this film? He even tried the suit on, but eventually it was a no go and it was Chris O’Donell who ended up playing the character on Batman and Robin. Ultimately, these Burton made changes only helped the film, making Batman Returns the most ‘Burtonesque’ of all the Bat films.

Burton talks out a scene with Pfeiffer and Keaton

And that’s basically what sets this one apart, that it’s Tim Burton’s world, he effectively turned the Batman franchise into his own, gothic, dark, grotesque, slightly sexualized universe; all without forgetting that this is Batman were talking about here. We get the batcave, the batmobile and even a bat glider! Plus, there’s all those cool Bat gadgets! We also see Batman getting a new love interest. Apparently, Vicky Vale couldn’t deal with Bruce Wayne’s dual persona. But no worries! Bats is now interested in Selina Kyle a.k.a. Catwoman. One of the most interesting aspects of the film is how Bruce Wayne deals with falling in love for someone who is a mirror image of himself. Selina Kyle also leads a double life; she also puts on a costume and fights evil, in her own twisted, angry way. Pfeiffer’s Selina is the voice of the angry woman saying “I’ve had enough!” And that’s one of the things that make Tim Burton’s Batman films so damn good; he always handled the villains so exquisitely well. They were always bigger than life; and were always, to a certain extent treated with sympathy. There’s no better example than Batman Returns to show this.

On this film Batman goes up against three villains, and though in the hands of a lesser director  this could have become a hindrance (Joel Schumacher?) Burton handled all three villains very well, giving each the screen time they deserved in order to become fully fleshed out characters. This probably explains why out of all the Bat films this is the longest one clocking in at 126 minutes. I say that’s no problem, I’d rather have a slightly longer film that truly fleshes out it’s characters, then a badly edited one where things apparently happen at a blink or you’ll miss it pace. Another reason why the villains in Batman Returns worked so well is because they were so well casted! Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman, wow, I mean, many actresses were rumored to play the character, but I’m glad it was finally Pfeiffer who ended up donning the cat costume, she’s so freaking sexy on this film. In fact, she was part of the reason why the film got a lot of heat. The sexual innuendoes are all over the place on this one! At one point Catwoman tells Batman and The Penguin “You poor guys, always confusing your pistols with your privates!” Unfortunately the general population didn’t take a sexualized Batman film in a good way, so much so that McDonald’s had to put a stop to their Batman Returns promotional happy meals, which of course made all the sense in the world. After all, this was not a children’s film and neither was the first film for that matter, Burton’s films were made for adults. I mean, sure they were about comic book characters, but they had an adult like sensibility to them. This of course was something that the studio quickly changed for Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997) two films that were obviously aimed at a more infantile audience and were decidedly campier. It’s no surprise that these two films are the most despised in the whole franchise and the ones that killed it.

Catwoman steals the film; she’s the epitome of feminism. She’s the secretary who is stepped on (literally!) by her boss. She’s not paid enough; she lives alone, in an extremely crappy apartment, in a child like environment. The film comments on how women are treated in this world, and she’s a character that’s here to show the anger felt towards the machismo, the chauvinistic pigs of the world. She’s sexy yeah, but she’s not to be taken for granted! She matters! And she will be heard! “Life’s a bitch and now some am I!” Pfeiffer’s portrayal of this character was so successful that the studio squeezed in an extra scene in the last frames, where we see Catwoman re-emerging, still alive. The studio planned to give the character her own film, but it took then more then ten years to finally release Catwoman (2004), one of the worst films ever made. By then everybody involved with the first film had moved on to other things and so the magic went with them. The character would emerge again in TheDark Knight Rises (2012), portrayed by Anne Hathaway in a less sexy, yet still effective form. In my opinion, Pfeiffer’s take on the character is still unrivaled.

Then we have the awesomeness that is Max Shreck, a character brought to life by the one and only Christopher Walken, through this character Burton and his writers wanted to show that the “real villains of the world don’t always wear costumes”. Walken was the perfect choice for Shreck, scary, intimidating, yet completely diplomatic when he has to be. Reportedly Walken even scared Burton himself! This theme of costume less villains was a great theme to explore, the film was criticizing big money and how they often times sacrifice the interests and well being of the people in order to maximize their profits; a theme that is still relevant in our modern times, in fact, maybe even more so. Out of all the villains in the film, Shreck is the baddest of them all. He lies through his teeth; he portrays himself as a true Gothamite, while he stabs the city in its back with his proposed power plant that will suck the city dry! He has one of the best lines: "Who would have though Selina had a brain to damage? Buttom line: she tries to black mail me, next time I throw her out of a higher window! In the mean time I have bigger fish to fry!" Damn, so cold. Finally we have DeVito’s The Penguin, an outcast of society, who lives in the cities sewer system. And here is the villain whom we can feel some amount of sympathy for, he’s simply an angry man because everyone rejects him, even his own parents who have no problems in throwing him into the river. Interesting tid bit of information: The Penguins parents are played by Pee-Herman and Diane Salinger, two actors  who worked together before on Burton’s first film: Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985)!

Critics were divided by this film; some felt it was a combination of art film and film noir, while others felt it didn’t give enough screen time to Batman or that it was too dark or sexual. Some said that The Penguin was a poor substitute for Nicholson’s Joker. I say the film is a big budget art film, it is dark and sexual. It feels a lot like a big budget film noir. And it’s gothic, and grand in scale, and grotesque and all of these elements add up to a great Batman film that never bores. A gigantic dark carnival! Seeing all these great actors having fun together on the silver screen is fantastic and personally, I love the fact that it’s a Bat film that’s heavy on themes. I can agree with some critics that said that Batman/Bruce Wayne is a bit eclipsed by the villains of the piece, but honestly, the villains are so interesting and the world they inhabit so lush and gothic that I had no real problem with this. It does feel like the stars of the show are actually the villains, and that’s okay in my book because, hey, at least Burton and his crew had something to say through them, this isn’t some empty spectacle. In my opinion, Burton created two very unique bat films, he did what every director should do with their films, make ‘em their own.

Rating: 5 out of 5  

Communion (1989)

Title: Communion (1989)

Director: Philippe Mora 

Cast: Christopher Walken, Lindsay Crouse, Frances Sternhagen

Review: 

Communion is a film based on a book by Whitley Strieber, supposedly, the book is based on 'real life experiences' about an alien abduction that Strieber suffered from while vacationing with his family in the woods; and so you know how that goes...it could be total bullshit, or it could be true. Who the hell knows with these things? One could safely say that Communion is the 'Amityville Horror' of science fiction. Remember that whole thing about The Amityville Horror? How the film was based on a book that detailed the ' real life' supernatural experiences of a family in Long Island? I've done my fair share of explorations on that whole Amityville thing, and to be honest, I came to the conclusion that it was just a get rich quick scheme by all those involved, and to their credit, it worked. The Amityville Horror (1977) scared audiences shitless back in the 70's, I know cause I was a kid. And I was horrified by that film! In this sense, The Amityville Horror, be it true or not, was a win-win situation for all those involved. The book was a best seller, and the film went on to be one of those memorable haunted house films that's still talked about to this day. Hell, it even spawned a remake. Why is Communion similar to The Amityville Horror (1979)?

It's similar, because it has the same kind of story behind it's production. Strieber's book became a #1 New York Times Bestseller, it was labeled a "controversial" book. Same as with the Amityville book, there was this whole "did it really happen or not" vibe to it that fact that the book had the words "a true story" prominently plastered on the covers made it a sensation. Because you all know, saying that a story is based on true events will almost certainly assure a boost in sales on any book. And so, the book became a hit and the inevitable film began production; with the right amount of 'buzz' around it, this film could become a huge hit. The question on everyones mind was if the film would be worth a damn. Well, this Film Connoisseur decided to check Communion out, just to see if all the hoopla was worth it. Personally, I don't give a damn if the stories true or not, I just wanted to see a good alien abduction movie. So, was it a good one? 

Communion tells the tale of Whitley Strieber, a writer, a husband and a family man. One day Whitley decides to take his family and a couple of friends out to the country for some rest and relaxation. Whitley has a cabin out in the woods, the perfect place for a weekend getaway. Whitley has the whole place rigged up with a security system, if anything weird happens these huge lights turn on. So that night, after everyone is settled and partied out, they all go to sleep. Suddenly, in the middle of the night a huge burst of light engulfs the entire house! Whitley wakes from his bed and sees a strange creature in the shadows...but is it real? The next morning Whitley wants to act like it was all just a bad dream he had, but everyone in the house has experienced it; how could it be a dream? 

So basically, this is one of those movies that's more about what happens to the abducted than about the aliens themselves. You know, kind of like Fire in the Sky (1993) where that lumberjack gets abducted by aliens? By the way I'll just save you some time and let you know that Fire in the Sky is a far better film than this one. Fire in the Sky feels as if someone saw Communion and said "let's do this the right way" The problems with Communion for me are many, but at the same time, it had some good things going for it. But first the bad: Philippe Mora is the director of this film, and I don't know if you guys have ever heard of him, but this next couple of words should be enough for the hairs on the back of your head to stand up: he's the director behind Howling II: You're Sister's a Werewolf (1985) and Howling III: The Marsupials (1987). Now, I've never seen Howling II, but if Howling III is any indication of what I can expect, I'm in for a terrible film! That's right folks, for me, Howling III is one of the worst films ever made. Period! I mean, I put it right up there with Troll II (1990) in terms of how bad it is. Let me put it this way, if you want to laugh at how bad a film is, look no further than Howling III! So keeping that in mind, was Communion as horrible as Howling III? 

The good thing I can say about Communion is that it sustains this wonderful dreamlike state. Sometimes we don't even know if we're dreaming or not. The dream sequences (or flashbacks it all depends on how YOU interpret the film) give this film this strange 'Twilight Zone' feel to it, I liked that about it. The dreamsequences are really the stand out thing about the film, they evoke the strangest sensations, they project the weirdest images and I'm going to go out on a limb here, but some of them are pretty good. Sadly, thats about as good as this film gets. Also, you know how Christopher Walken can get really crazy in some of his performances, to the point where he gets kind of scary? Remember him on King of New York (1990) or The Deer Hunter (1978)? Well, on Communion he goes to fringes of normalcy once again and acts as if he was insane, really insane. This is the kind of performance where you get the feeling that he's on something as he performs.There's this scene where he gets hypnotized, wow, he came off as really crazy there. Reportedly, Whitley Strieber didn't like Walken's portrayal of him, he told Walken that he was portraying him a bit "too crazy". Walken's reply was "if the shoe fits"  implying that Strieber is in fact crazy, so that's the kind of vibe that was floating around this set. I say if you like your Walken like he's one card shy of a full deck, this is the one for you. Some critics have gone on to imply that it was Walkens performance which brought the film down a couple of notches. I say no. Walken has done crazy before with other directors and it's worked, I say it's the direction and style of the film that turned it into a box office bomb. 

Which brings me to the thing I absolutely hated about this film: the alien creatures. There's two types of aliens on this film, we get that traditional skinny, long alien with the elongated black eyes, you know, the traditional alien that some people claim to have seen, and then there's these midget aliens, that wear  monk cloaks and have blue skin. To be honest, they reminded me of the midget creatures from the Phantasm (1979). Now, I love the Phantasm films, but I always thought those midgets from the Phantasm films where kind of funny and at times kind of took me out of the film, sadly, the same thing happens on this film. According to the tone of the film, the aliens should have been frightening, yet they come off as completely laughable. In one scene, Christopher Walken's character himself laughs at the notion of these blue midgets being menacing saying that it's all very ridiculous, which is probably what Walken truly thought about the creature effects; and thats a bad sign right there, when your actors are making fun of the creatures in your film. At a certain point in the film, you kind of get the feeling that the filmmakers themselves are kind of making fun of Whitley Strieber's story. As if they weren't taking it seriously themselves, cant say I blame them. 

All in all, this is a dissapointing film. I liked certain elements of it, and it had an interesting premise but the direction and the creature effects bring the film down way too much for me to fully enjoy it. It has this Twilight Zone/dreamlike feel to it which I kind of enjoyed, but as an effective alien abduction film, I say this one failed horribly because you never feel like the film is taking itself seriously. In other words: the film feels uneven. I recommend this one only if you're in the mood to watch a really weird film, or if you are in the mood for watching a film that you just can't quite figure out why you don't like. Mediocre at best; sadly, this is the best Philippe Mora film I have seen. 

Rating: 2 out of 5

My favorite image in the entire film

The Prophecy Films

So I finally got around to watching The Prophecy films. I bought them in this nifty dvd which collected all three films in one disk, so I ended up watching them back to back. I know that these films have gone past their third installment, I believe they are currently on their fourth sequel, but I don’t even count the ones after part 3 because they don’t have Christopher Walken in them, they feel more like a cash in, a last desperate attempt to milk the franchise for all it’s worth. I just don’t have any interest in them. But if anyone out there thinks that Prophecy: Forsaken (2005) and Prophecy: Uprising (2005) are worth a damn, let me know, I just might give them a shot at some point. But for now, they don’t even register on my radar. This review will cover only the first three films. So it’s a three for one deal, enjoy!

The thing about these movies is that they started out with a decent theatrical release, which was the first film, the sequels after that all went straight to dvd which always raises a red flag for me because they make me think that if they went straight to dvd, then they weren’t considered good enough by the producers, at least not good enough to bother with a theatrical release. So maybe this is the reason why I had never bothered seeing these straight to dvd sequels that followed the original. But curiosity always gets the best of me and I found this dvd with all three so cheap that I went for it. I’m glad I did, the first three films are fairly decent on their own right.

The interesting thing about these first three Prophecy films is that they all had a decent cast. I mean, take a look at the first one where we have the always entertaining Christopher Walken as the human hating angel, Gabriel. You see on these series of films, some angels hate humans because they are jealous of them. They feel that God loves humans more then angels, so some angels have decided to completely annihilate the human race, just so they could be number one again. They want to make it like before, when God loved them best. In order to achieve this, Gabriel wants to find the soul of the most evil human on the planet, who just so happens to be a military leader for the U.S. army. Just watching Walken playing an angel is great, he has such fun with the character; who by the way gets funnier as the series progresses. He spews lines like “I’m an angel, I kill firstborns while their mamas watch!” These movies are that much enjoyable simple because Walken is in them. So anyways we also get Elias Koteas, the guy who always plays secondary characters in every single movie he’s been in except this one, where he   plays detective Thomas Daggett, a priest wannabe who every now and then  gets horrific visions from god. The whole thing makes you wonder why God would send someone such horrible images! But whatever, Daggett is investigating the appearance of dead angels, which keep popping up across the city. Along for the ride is Virginia Madsen who plays a grade school teacher and the always underused Eric Stoltz who plays the good angel that’s trying to stop Gabriel. But the avalanche of talent isn’t over my friends! The amazing cast continues with Amanda Plummer as a zombie/ghoul who helps Gabriel move around and Viggo Mortensen playing Satan himself! So we got an amazing cast rounding up this horror film! Was the film worth it?

Well yeah. The story is all about humans, it preaches on about how we are capable of a lot of good, but unfortunately, a lot of evil as well. The idea that an angel needs the soul of an evil human to help him destroy humanity itself says a lot about how the filmmakers see humanity. We are creatures capable of such violence, that our violent capabilities rival even that of God’s own angels! We are the experts on the subject; so much so that they need US to destroy humanity; as Lucifer himself puts it: “Humans -and how I love talking monkeys for this- know more about war and treachery of the spirit than any angel” The film unfolds in a very dark and eerie manner, with angels running around the city killing each other as lightning strikes the skies. Somehow American Indian folklore works its way into the film! Same as in many horror films, Indians always have the best connection with anything supernatural, which really is something of a cliché in horror films. There’s always an Indian burial ground, or an Indian spirit, or an Indian shaman to help out. The thing about these Prophecy movies is that they are always on the verge of some big apocalyptic event happening, but nothing ever does. The big war between angels and humans, or good angels vs. rebel angels never really consummates. But whatever, the in between was also fun.

These films are all filled with angels crouching on top of furniture or on top of buildings like birds; problem is they never really fly! I never got his about these movies, these guys are angels but they don’t seem to ever use their wings for flying. We do get to see a five second sequence of angels flying in the clouds, but we see it from afar, and briefly. And they re-use that same stock footage on a couple of these films, which I hated. I guess it had something to do with budgetary limitations, but we never really get to take a good look at the angels spreading their wings and flying. If an angel opens its wings, we only see the shadow of that, or someone’s reaction to it, but we never see the freaking angels taking flight. They do skip around a lot and jump around a lot though. I found it funnyt that since angels don’t know how to handle human machinery, they have to resort to having humans doing things for them like driving them around town or showing them how to use a computer or a walkie talkie. Why don’t they just fly where they need to go instead of using a car?

So, in comes Prophecy II (1998) which was the most difficult to watch of these three films. I found it extremely boring, and disappointing for various reasons. Number one, I didn’t like the fact that the film resorted to using so much stock footage from the first film. To me this is a lame ass, lazy move from any filmmaker. You are showing us the same images from the first film! Don’t do this! We as an audience feel cheated as hell! Still, the director felt the need to show us the same sequence of angels flying far up in the sky, and these flashbacks of angels fighting that we already saw on the first film. Laaazy! On this second chapter of the Prophecy series Jennifer Beals has a one night stand with an angel. The angel is looking for the right girl to father his child. You see, the angels want to conceive a half breed, a half human, half angel child. This half breed is the one destined to stop the rebel angels from committing genocide. So Jennifer Beals character functions as a “Virgin Mary” of sorts on this film.

Even Satan doesnt want this guy in hell! 

Now here's where things dont stick to bible lore: in the bible the sons of angels are called ‘The Nephilim’. According to the bible angels actually looked down the from heavens at the eartlhy women and foudn them incredibly hot. Cant say I blame them, I'm merely a human and I find them irresistible. Yet, this idea of angels having sexual desires makes no sense because according to the bible, angels are supposed to be asexual! So anyhows, they found earth girls hot and materialized so they could get a taste of female flesh! So any way, they ended up having babies, and these sons of angels ended up being evil giants who terrorized the land. That’s right my friends, according to the bible giants once walked the earth! And they were evil! Yet on this movie the Nephilim is supposed to be some sort of savior! Humanities last hope for survival. See what I mean? No sense whatsoever. On top of this, the angel that screws Jessica Beals doesn’t even care for her, he just uses her! The bastard! Point is that this angel ends up committing what the bible refers to as fornication, which is just a big word for having sex before getting married. According to the bible, this is one of the biggest sins you could commit against god! But this angel doesnt care, he sins in order to defeat the bad angels? And these are supposed to be the good guys! So anyhow, this second chapter in the series has a cool cast, again Christopher Walken returns as Gabriel, we get Jennifer Beals as Rosario, we get Eric Roberts and Danzig as angels. And as an added bonus Brittany Murphy played the ghoul who does Gabriel’s beading!  But in spite of this film having a great cast, this second chapter in the series feels like an in-between chapter in a much larger story. It feels like they were setting everything up for something bigger. And that’s exactly what they were doing with this second film. The third film was far more entertaining and fulfilling. It wanted to end the series with a big bang! I think it achieved it.

Brittany Murphy in one of her earliest roles

The Prophecy 3: The Ascent (2000) surprised the hell out of me. Having seen the past two films and finding them only mildly entertaining, I went in to this third chapter with very low expectations, yet I’m happy to inform that I was pleasantly surprised. In fact, it’s the one that I enjoyed the most out of all three! One thing I like about these first three films is that they have continuity to them. Characters return and reappear; problem is that sometimes it’s difficult to realize this because they keep changing actors. In spite of this, you do get a sense of continuity, and Walken’s Gabriel is the one character that holds all three films together. One element I enjoyed about this one is that Gabriel is human on this one, and so he is kind of getting used to being human. He likes living on earth, he’s dropped the short black hair and trench coat for long white hair and living like a bum on the streets. On this film he is slowly learning to actually like humans. With this film they pulled a Terminator 2 (1992) on us and went and made the villain a good guy this time around. Walken is no longer hell bent on destroying humanity, he’s lightened up. One hilarious scene has him just enjoying a drive down the dessert on this beat up old car trying to play a trumpet as he drives, cause you know, according to the bible, angels play trumpets in heaven all the time, which kind of makes you think about who gives angels music classes, and who makes these holy musical instruments? 

But who cares seeing Christopher Walken playing a trumpet as he drives is hilarious right?! In Gabriel’s place we now have a villain called Pyriel who is still very much interested in destroying all humans and proclaiming himself the “next god”. The Nephilim Danyael (who was introduced in the second film) is now all grown up and has lost all faith in God. In fact he runs a church that preaches against god! I thought this was so interesting! But across the film he learns to accept his true destiny which is going up against the Pyriel, the leader of the rebel angels.

This third film distinguishes itself for various reasons, first, it was directed by one Patrick Lussier. Now this is a director whom you can either love or hate, depending on how much cheese you can take. Lussier is the guy behind Drive Angry (2011), a film I enjoyed hating. He also made My Bloody Valentine (2009) and is currently hard at work putting the finishing touches on Halloween III (2012). He’s also the guy behind all those Dracula 2000 movies. All of these films are high in octane and cheese, unapologetic about their b-movie nature. I guess this is the reason why this Prophecy film was so fun to watch. The previous two films feel dreary and boring when compared to this one which is filled with chase sequences and matrix-style fighting. Also, it has this awesome showdown during its last sequences between two angels that is the most exciting thing in the whole trilogy. The film even has a happy ending to it! 

Another thing that made this one cool: it has Brad Dourif playing a gun totting religious fanatic who walks around with the bible in one hand and a gun to shoot any infidels on the other! This is yet another crazy character to add to Brad Dourif long list of freaky characters he's portrayed on film.Well, I guess I’ve run out of things to say about these movies. Not a bad trilogy of films, the third film offers up a nice wrap up to the trilogy and has finality to it. At least this series isn’t as bad as the Children of the Corn movies which by the way I will comment on soon. But these Prophecy films prove one thing to me once again: God hates to appear in horror films,  while Satan loves them. For proof of that check out one of my most popular blog posts: God and Satan inFilms. And another thing, if you freeze frame the last image in Prophecy II, just before the ending credits you can see a face forming in the clouds, while thunder and lightning crackle…don’t know if that qualifies as an appearance by God or not, what do you guys think?

Rating: The Prophecy (1995)  3 out of 5

Rating: The Prophecy II (1998) 2 out of 5

Rating:  The Prophecy 3: The Ascent (2000) 3 1/2 out of 5 

  

The Sentinel (1977)

Title: The Sentinel (1977)

Director: Michael Winner

Cast: Chris Sarandon, Cristina Raines, Burgess Meredith, Eli Wallach, Ava Gardner, Jose Ferrer, Beverly D’Angelo, Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum

Review:

In Lucio Fulci’s City of the Living Dead (1981) the suicide of a priest causes the doors of hell to burst open. After that, ghosts/zombies are set loose upon the world and the undead begin to walk the streets, people barf up their innards and maggots fall from the sky. But that’s the Lucio Fulci version of the gates of hell opening. Now that I’ve seen Michael Winner’s The Sentinel, I can see where Fulci might have gotten the idea for his City of the Living Dead, in fact, I’m sure Fulci was inspired by The Sentinel. Both films have lots of similarities in terms of plot, images and situations. This wouldn’t surprise me, since Italians were particularly well known for ripping off American horror films and making lower budgeted versions of them.

 In The Sentinel, we meet Allison Parker a young model living and working in New York City. She’s thinking about marrying her fiancé, Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) but she still hasn’t given him the proverbial “yes”. Instead, she wants to find her own apartment and be an independent person; just to prove to herself that she can survive on her own in this big bad world. And find her own apartment she does; It’s in a beautiful building right smack in the middle of Brooklyn, New York. According to the landlady, Allison along with an old blind priest that lives in the fifth floor will be the only ones living in the apartment building. But is that the truth? Allison hears strange noises in the middle of the night and meets a bunch of weird neighbors. Could there be something more to this apartment building then meets the eye? And why is that blind priest always sitting by his apartment window staring at nothing?  

 So yeah, the similarities between this film and Fulci’s City of the Living Dead are pretty obvious. Girl moves into a new apartment, turns out it’s the gateway into hell. She starts seeing all manner of strange supernatural events. Suicide figures into the plot, as do blind girls. The only thing is that Fulci being Fulci, well he’s take on the “Gates of Hell” theme is way more graphic, and gory and over all, pretty freaking nasty. After all it’s not in every film you get to see a beautiful young girl barfing up her intestines. But such is the nature of a Fulci flick, always aiming to shock you. The Sentinel is a much more cerebral and moody film. It doesn’t aim for cheap shocks, or to gross you out with its graphic nature. Instead, it wants to creep you out with its atmosphere. The Sentinel is disturbing on a whole other level that City of the Living Dead (a.k.a. The Gates of Hell) isn’t. This difference between films with similar premise shows us just how much of a difference on a film a director can make. With these two films we have a similar premise, but two completely different films in terms of mood. Give a movie like this to Mr. Fulci and you get a maggot storm. Give it to Winner and you get human oddities as demons.

 If I had to compare The Sentinel to another horror film in terms of mood and atmosphere, it would be with Rosemary’s Baby (1968), the biggest influence on The Sentinel if you ask me. The Sentinel was made in the late 70’s the day and age of the supernatural horror film. Because of the resounding success of The Exorcist (1973), horror films dealing with the supernatural where the order of the day for Hollywood. So films like The Omen (1976), The Amityville Horror (1979) and The Changeling (1980) were getting made left and right. But in my opinion it was Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby that influenced The Sentinel the most. We have a female protagonist, who is not really right in her head. The film is all about a girl moving into a new apartment, in New York City. She is hounded by a bunch of weirdo neighbors, who may or may not have an evil purpose for her. No one is to be trusted, and just like in many Roman Polanski films, paranoia reigns supreme. The similarities with Rosemary’s Baby are all over the place with this film.

With it's evil old people, The Sentinel was obviously influenced by Rosemary's Baby!

Same as in many supernatural themed horror films, the Catholic Church is the one with all the answers and the powers to stop the evil. And yet again I notice how much these films are used to propagate the idea of Christian faith onto the masses. And once again this is a film in which an unbeliever is taught a lesson and made to pay for her sins. In one moment of The Sentinel the main character actually goes into a church to ask for forgiveness for having renounced Jesus Christ, you see, she’s been experiencing a lot of spooky shit and so she wants to be on Gods side, just in case. This is yet another film which brings Catholic fantasies to life. And a big fat fantasy it is, I mean the gates of hell are on the top floor of an apartment building in Brooklyn! The blind priest who lives in the top floor is supposed to be the guardian of these gates, unfortunately he doesn’t do a very good job at it because demons keep getting out and harassing poor Allison. Characters in this film talk about paying for their sins for all eternity and what not, so yeah, this one is all about Catholic guilt, and Catholic beliefs.

 But I will give this to The Sentinel, it does have some truly disturbing imagery in it. On this film, demons harass Allison, the dead visit her in the middle of the night and she has these weird dreams. And it’s the way that these undead entities are portrayed in the film that brings forth the disturbing and unsettling nature of The Sentinel. Director Michael Winner thought it would be a good idea to use real deformed people to portray the demons. So suddenly, whenever demons appear in the film we are treated to an avalanche of fat, old, deformed, handicapped, human beings.  This isn’t the first time that a film director uses human oddities for a horror film. Other examples of this can be found in Tod Browning’s Freaks (1932) and Alejandro Jodorowsky’s Santa Sangre (1989); actually, any Jodorowsky film can be mentioned here because that’s something Jodorowsky always relied on for his films: the use of human oddities to bring forth a feeling of unease. The use of human oddities on The Sentinel cause some controversy when the film was first released. Is this exploitative? Should it be allowed in films? Is it wrong to use these kind of people in films? Is it ethical?

 Sexuality is also used as a means to convey ‘evil’. For example, amongst some of Allison’s freaky neighbors there is a pair of lesbians. When Allison asks them what it is that they do for a living one of them replies “we fondle each other”. Then Beverly D’Angelo’s character begins to masturbate in front of Allison, in what is without a doubt one of the most awkward moments in the film. A lot of the ghosts appear naked through out the film; in fact, at the crux of the film is a scene in which Allison catches her father in an orgy! So sticking pretty close to Catholic beliefs, sexuality is demonized on this film.

 Finally, something has to be said about the films cast. It’s interesting that the film is filled with so many good actors in extremely small roles. Some of the cast members were not particularly well known at the time, but they were going to be. Bit parts in this film were performed by the likes of Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and Beverly D’Angelo; all unknowns at the time. The film also has bit parts for famous old actors like Ava Gardner, Jose Ferrer and Burgess Meredith, by the way Burgess Meredith always plays these nice old dudes in his films. I mean, I always remember him as Rocky Balboa's father like figure 'Micky' from the Rocky movies, but on The Sentinel he is this weird old man, he was obviously going for something against the type of characters he was used to playing all the time. We also get Chris Sarandon playing Allison’s boyfriend, I mean, we have a star studded cast for this old school spooky film. And old school it is; The Sentinel has a classic vibe going for it, it is not a film that relies on visual effects or cheap looking ghosts, the emphasis on this one is mood and atmosphere. And I must say that it achieves a spooky, unsettling atmosphere quite effectively. With The Sentinel, you get the feeling that something is not quite right, that there is evil in the air. The Sentinel is one of these ultra-serious horror films from the 70’s; the kind of horror film they don’t make anymore.

Rating: 4 out of 5