Rawhead Rex is one of the stories in horror writer Clive Barker's early collection of short stories, Books of Blood (from which also came Candyman and the more recent adaptations of Dread and The Midnight Meat Train). Aside from the broad strokes, the thing I remember most about this story of an ancient evil unearthed to run amok in a small countryside village, is its characteristically Barker-esque wicked perversity, particularly in the scene involving the beast's unholy baptism - which I'm happy to say is preserved in the film (though kept at a broad distance).
The story opens in a small Irish village, where a local is about to overturn an old stone artifact in a field, which bears a startling resemblance to one of the stained glass window designs in the local church, that depicts a devil being trapped underground by a divine figure. Meanwhile, an out-of-town historian is visiting with his family to research the pre-Christian, pagan roots of the town's religious traditions, and you can bet there's a connection between the two. Pretty soon, there's a towering manbeast rampaging through the countryside, wreaking havoc left and right, and the only hope of stopping him is deciphering the old legend to find its weakness.
The design of the monster is excellent. As far as the quality of the effects go, the mask does look kind of rubbery at times, and is devoid of much motion and emotional dynamics, which is a strike against it. But as far as the design is concerned, I think it looks great, and suits the creature perfectly. The story is pretty out there - it comes from the twisted mind of Clive Barker, after all - and I don't think very many people treat it seriously. The monster alone probably raises it above your typical slasher creature feature, and the writing (adapted for the screen by Barker himself) is solid, even if the one acolyte character does overact just a tad. Plus, some of the lightning effects are very cheesy in that lame '80s fx sort of way, and the final scene is pure cliche. In the end, it's not as bad as all that, but it doesn't quite succeed on the level of Hellraiser (which was brilliant).
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Creature (1985)
You can tell from the plot synopsis alone that this movie is an obvious and cheap knock-off of Alien - emphasis on cheap. But Alien is one of the seminal sci-fi/horror films of all time, and so any movie trying to recapture its brilliance (even via direct imitation, rather than creative influence) is going to attract my attention. The problem with Creature, then, is less that it is a shameless rip-off of a much better movie, but is simply the fact that it's not a much better movie itself. It feels quite like a TV movie, and the production values (especially when making comparisons to Ridley Scott's Alien, as the viewer is inevitably compelled to do) are conspicuously shoddy.
And then there are other problems, like the inane banter between the characters. There was a lot of idle dialogue in Alien, but it felt natural, and served compellingly to produce an atmosphere of realism, and help the audience to identify with the characters. In Creature, it's just dumb, and the poor attempts at humor serve only to undermine the film's atmosphere. And then, the astronauts' reaction to finding alien life - particularly alien life that is both vicious and apparently intelligent, given its use of technology - on Titan, Saturn's moon (so, not quite so far out there), is to be entirely underwhelmed, except by the possibility for fame and fortune.
It should go without saying that a monster movie like Creature hinges on the success or failure of it's movie monster. Even Alien wasn't immune to this (though even on that count, it succeeded in spades). Unlike most b movies, the monster in Creature is actually very creepy and compelling. It's like the Carnosaur version of H.R. Giger's sleek and sexy xenomorph, all teeth and glowing eyes and lumps of what-the-fuck-is-that?! It's unfortunate, therefore, that the creature is not featured nearly enough, using some cheap psychic tactic to make its human victims do most of its killing.
One must not oversell the creature in a movie like this, of course, but when you've got a creature as badass as this one is, the viewer is gonna want more glimpses of it throughout the picture. Alas, it is perhaps the movie's only redeeming feature, and saving it for the end means over an hour of story that struggles to keep my interest. Even the addition of actual nudity isn't enough to save it. It's telling that a review of Creature only serves to indicate the elements that made Alien such a great film, where it itself fails sorrowfully. It's too bad, especially in light of the great creature effects, because I would have liked to have seen an at least half-decent movie on the same theme.
And then there are other problems, like the inane banter between the characters. There was a lot of idle dialogue in Alien, but it felt natural, and served compellingly to produce an atmosphere of realism, and help the audience to identify with the characters. In Creature, it's just dumb, and the poor attempts at humor serve only to undermine the film's atmosphere. And then, the astronauts' reaction to finding alien life - particularly alien life that is both vicious and apparently intelligent, given its use of technology - on Titan, Saturn's moon (so, not quite so far out there), is to be entirely underwhelmed, except by the possibility for fame and fortune.
It should go without saying that a monster movie like Creature hinges on the success or failure of it's movie monster. Even Alien wasn't immune to this (though even on that count, it succeeded in spades). Unlike most b movies, the monster in Creature is actually very creepy and compelling. It's like the Carnosaur version of H.R. Giger's sleek and sexy xenomorph, all teeth and glowing eyes and lumps of what-the-fuck-is-that?! It's unfortunate, therefore, that the creature is not featured nearly enough, using some cheap psychic tactic to make its human victims do most of its killing.
One must not oversell the creature in a movie like this, of course, but when you've got a creature as badass as this one is, the viewer is gonna want more glimpses of it throughout the picture. Alas, it is perhaps the movie's only redeeming feature, and saving it for the end means over an hour of story that struggles to keep my interest. Even the addition of actual nudity isn't enough to save it. It's telling that a review of Creature only serves to indicate the elements that made Alien such a great film, where it itself fails sorrowfully. It's too bad, especially in light of the great creature effects, because I would have liked to have seen an at least half-decent movie on the same theme.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Dagon (2001)
Dagon is yet another adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft story directed by Stuart Gordon. Although - for those curious about tracking down the source material - it is not, in fact, an adaptation of the short story titled "Dagon", but rather the novella titled "The Shadow Over Innsmouth". Like many of H.P. Lovecraft's stories, this one is narrated in retrospect, by a man who has experienced some decidedly eldritch horrors, and is, usually, on the verge of committing suicide, going completely mad, or else embracing an alternately horrible (yet no less inevitable) fate, having once and for all cleared his conscience by bringing the truth of his experiences to light.
Perhaps this narrative method is more difficult to utilize in the audiovisual (versus the written) medium - although I still think you could make it work. On the other hand, a good portion of the mythology of the story in The Shadow Over Innsmouth is told through long passages of static dialogue. As such, there are some definite liberties taken in the film adaptation of the story, although it does ultimately touch on all the major points. Most notably is the fact that the setting is relocated from New England to Spain, a few more characters are thrown in so the protagonist is not entirely alone on this expedition, and the movie gets more up close and personal with the unholy rituals hinted at in the story (which is probably for the better, because that's kind of the payoff in a movie like this one).
The basic gist of the story is this: the protagonist comes upon a ramshackle coastal town with queer inhabitants who don't quite seem human. They worship Dagon, the fish god (who has some unspecified connection to the Cthulhu mythos). The written story (in classic Lovecraftian style) is a little more subtle (if not entirely unpredictable) in its gradual revelation of the inhabitants' "condition". The movie is a bit more blunt, although it does save some surprises for later on. The way the inhabitants are portrayed is really well done, I think - both convincingly unsettling, and perfectly in line with what I think Lovecraft was probably going for. Although the occasional digital effects leave something to be desired, the practical effects (including makeup and prosthetics) are mostly exceptional, and really add to the otherworldly feel of the setting. Though I do feel that certain scenes must have been written in to the script just to have a few gore set-pieces, as the original story (as few of Lovecraft's stories seem to need to do) does not rely overly much on gore to effectively disturb the reader.
The characters are maybe not the most sympathetic, and the town drunkard's history lesson is spoken in such a strong accent that it's actually very difficult to understand at times, so the movie is not without its flaws. Nor is it a perfect Lovecraftian adaptation, though it much better captures the right spirit than Re-Animator did, for example. But, it does plenty of things right, and foremost of all is the fact that this movie sets itself apart from any other movie you could compare it to, with the both highly imaginative and unsettlingly creepy aspects courtesy of Lovecraft's tortured genius of a mind. And while From Beyond tackles that one characteristic element of Lovecraft's stories - the idea that things exist beyond our capacity to sense or understand them, and that they are so terrible that attempting to do so (often through dreams) can lead only to death or madness - Dagon presents (and explores the connection between) two other elements: the worship of ancient, unspeakable gods, and the existence of creatures whose alien-ness is frightening, but whose partial humanity implies a far more terrifying conclusion.
Perhaps this narrative method is more difficult to utilize in the audiovisual (versus the written) medium - although I still think you could make it work. On the other hand, a good portion of the mythology of the story in The Shadow Over Innsmouth is told through long passages of static dialogue. As such, there are some definite liberties taken in the film adaptation of the story, although it does ultimately touch on all the major points. Most notably is the fact that the setting is relocated from New England to Spain, a few more characters are thrown in so the protagonist is not entirely alone on this expedition, and the movie gets more up close and personal with the unholy rituals hinted at in the story (which is probably for the better, because that's kind of the payoff in a movie like this one).
The basic gist of the story is this: the protagonist comes upon a ramshackle coastal town with queer inhabitants who don't quite seem human. They worship Dagon, the fish god (who has some unspecified connection to the Cthulhu mythos). The written story (in classic Lovecraftian style) is a little more subtle (if not entirely unpredictable) in its gradual revelation of the inhabitants' "condition". The movie is a bit more blunt, although it does save some surprises for later on. The way the inhabitants are portrayed is really well done, I think - both convincingly unsettling, and perfectly in line with what I think Lovecraft was probably going for. Although the occasional digital effects leave something to be desired, the practical effects (including makeup and prosthetics) are mostly exceptional, and really add to the otherworldly feel of the setting. Though I do feel that certain scenes must have been written in to the script just to have a few gore set-pieces, as the original story (as few of Lovecraft's stories seem to need to do) does not rely overly much on gore to effectively disturb the reader.
The characters are maybe not the most sympathetic, and the town drunkard's history lesson is spoken in such a strong accent that it's actually very difficult to understand at times, so the movie is not without its flaws. Nor is it a perfect Lovecraftian adaptation, though it much better captures the right spirit than Re-Animator did, for example. But, it does plenty of things right, and foremost of all is the fact that this movie sets itself apart from any other movie you could compare it to, with the both highly imaginative and unsettlingly creepy aspects courtesy of Lovecraft's tortured genius of a mind. And while From Beyond tackles that one characteristic element of Lovecraft's stories - the idea that things exist beyond our capacity to sense or understand them, and that they are so terrible that attempting to do so (often through dreams) can lead only to death or madness - Dagon presents (and explores the connection between) two other elements: the worship of ancient, unspeakable gods, and the existence of creatures whose alien-ness is frightening, but whose partial humanity implies a far more terrifying conclusion.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
I Saw The Devil (2010)
I Saw The Devil is not the supernatural Satanic story you might expect from the title (for better or worse). Precious few films with the word "devil" in their title are; many of them prefer instead to use the devil as a metaphor. With that in mind, I Saw The Devil is a Korean film on the popular subject of revenge fantasy, exacted via vigilante justice. Rather than glorify the act of justified revenge (a la Death Wish), and focusing more on the horror (through explicit gore) than action (like, say, Taken), there is a subset of this genre that focuses on the psychological damage caused by exacting revenge. This was exactly the theme of 7 Days - one of the more unsettling movies I've ever watched - as well as the premise of that new movie Prisoners that I have not seen yet.
The blueprint for this type of movie is pretty straightforward. The movie starts with some creep committing atrocious acts against an innocent - the more heinous the better, to provide as much justification as possible for the vigilante-to-be's future retribution. Then, a relative or friend of the victim gets some tip from the authorities and decides to take justice into his own hands - capturing the criminal (sometimes even taking him from the police, because heaven knows the justice system isn't capable of seeing justice done) - and torturing him in ways that make the criminal's initial crime pale in comparison. This is the typical setup, and it's plainly a wish fulfillment fantasy for anyone who's ever read about some creep committing a terrible crime, and then wishing they could do horrible things to the criminal (e.g., rip their balls off, feed them their own waste, skin them alive) - the sort of thing you see in the comments to any online news article.
In the traditional version, the audience is supposed to cheer on the vigilante, because his cause is righteous and the villains are getting only what they deserve. What movies like I Saw The Devil or 7 Days do, is make the carnage so explicit, and show the deleterious effects on the vigilante's psyche, so as to make the argument that the revenge is not actually satisfying, and the only thing it accomplishes is - not to make you feel better, but - to turn you into exactly the sort of monster you were lashing out against in the first place. Frighteningly, some viewers completely miss the point and still treat these movies just like the traditional version, and cheer on the vigilante, even as he destroys his own life and mental well-being, and ends up causing more suffering of the sort that led to this state of affairs than if he had dealt with his grief in a more humane sort of way.
Different movies make this point better or worse, and in different ways. 7 Days emphasized the lack of peace and satisfaction. I Saw The Devil does a great job of manipulating events to demonstrate how closely the vigilante becomes the sort of person that the killer was, in deed if not entirely in psyche. Although the way it ended left a little bit of ambiguity in terms of its message, which is not infrequently the case with morally ambiguous stories like this one. But in spite of the grim subject matter, this movie is very well done - with excellent acting and cinematography. It has a long running time, though. There's a lot going on in the movie, so it's not that it drags, but two and a half hours of sadistic brutality and mental quagmire has a way of wearing you down, perhaps more, even, than is necessary to get the point across.
I think it's telling that revenge fantasy has evolved to the point where we're no longer simplistically cheering on the vigilante, but observing how damaging and unhealthy revenge is. Although it concerns me that we haven't yet moved past that point. I, for one, understand that to give in to revenge is to let the devil win; but, in truth, there are still a vast many out there who don't seem to get it. So maybe we still need movies like this. And this is as good a one as I've seen. If it weren't for the sheer depravity depicted, and the stomach-turning grotesqueries on display, I'd count it on the level of cinematic epics as, for example, The Departed was in the mainstream gangster genre. But perhaps it's best, after all, if not too many people are exposed to movies like this one, in the end. Not everyone has to see the devil to know that he's bad news.
The blueprint for this type of movie is pretty straightforward. The movie starts with some creep committing atrocious acts against an innocent - the more heinous the better, to provide as much justification as possible for the vigilante-to-be's future retribution. Then, a relative or friend of the victim gets some tip from the authorities and decides to take justice into his own hands - capturing the criminal (sometimes even taking him from the police, because heaven knows the justice system isn't capable of seeing justice done) - and torturing him in ways that make the criminal's initial crime pale in comparison. This is the typical setup, and it's plainly a wish fulfillment fantasy for anyone who's ever read about some creep committing a terrible crime, and then wishing they could do horrible things to the criminal (e.g., rip their balls off, feed them their own waste, skin them alive) - the sort of thing you see in the comments to any online news article.
In the traditional version, the audience is supposed to cheer on the vigilante, because his cause is righteous and the villains are getting only what they deserve. What movies like I Saw The Devil or 7 Days do, is make the carnage so explicit, and show the deleterious effects on the vigilante's psyche, so as to make the argument that the revenge is not actually satisfying, and the only thing it accomplishes is - not to make you feel better, but - to turn you into exactly the sort of monster you were lashing out against in the first place. Frighteningly, some viewers completely miss the point and still treat these movies just like the traditional version, and cheer on the vigilante, even as he destroys his own life and mental well-being, and ends up causing more suffering of the sort that led to this state of affairs than if he had dealt with his grief in a more humane sort of way.
Different movies make this point better or worse, and in different ways. 7 Days emphasized the lack of peace and satisfaction. I Saw The Devil does a great job of manipulating events to demonstrate how closely the vigilante becomes the sort of person that the killer was, in deed if not entirely in psyche. Although the way it ended left a little bit of ambiguity in terms of its message, which is not infrequently the case with morally ambiguous stories like this one. But in spite of the grim subject matter, this movie is very well done - with excellent acting and cinematography. It has a long running time, though. There's a lot going on in the movie, so it's not that it drags, but two and a half hours of sadistic brutality and mental quagmire has a way of wearing you down, perhaps more, even, than is necessary to get the point across.
I think it's telling that revenge fantasy has evolved to the point where we're no longer simplistically cheering on the vigilante, but observing how damaging and unhealthy revenge is. Although it concerns me that we haven't yet moved past that point. I, for one, understand that to give in to revenge is to let the devil win; but, in truth, there are still a vast many out there who don't seem to get it. So maybe we still need movies like this. And this is as good a one as I've seen. If it weren't for the sheer depravity depicted, and the stomach-turning grotesqueries on display, I'd count it on the level of cinematic epics as, for example, The Departed was in the mainstream gangster genre. But perhaps it's best, after all, if not too many people are exposed to movies like this one, in the end. Not everyone has to see the devil to know that he's bad news.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
The Langoliers (1995)
So I finally got around to watching Stephen King's The Langoliers. It's been on my radar ever since my friend mentioned it in college. I think that his opinion of it was not real great, but when he showed me a picture of the terrible CGI monsters, I thought they looked awesome. At that moment, I vowed to watch it - no matter how bad it might be.
I was expecting a b-grade cheesefest, but, to my surprise, The Langoliers was actually pretty good. Not flawless, by any means, but not terrible either. It's got a fascinating concept, and it constructs an intriguing atmosphere of mystery and suspense. Ten people wake up on a commercial flight to find everyone else vanished, and then have to figure out what the hell is going on. I guess this is a spoiler, but it turns out to be some kind of temporal anomaly, involving cosmic entities that devour reality!
Awesome, right? As for the flaws, the poor CGI can't be ignored. Granted, I still think the monsters (the "Langoliers") look badass, and that almost makes up for the bad CGI. Their behavior could use a little polish, maybe, but there's a solid kernel there in their conception. The other major flaw is the runtime. It's a[nother] 3 hour long TV miniseries, and that, really, is more time than the movie needs to tell its story. As such, it drags on quite a bit. I think a feature film remake pared down to under two hours, with better creature effects and an updated cast could do wonders for this story.
Even so, it's not half as bad as its reputation, and it offers a fresh perspective on the subject of time travel, and the nature of time, that is bound to get your noggin going. It's worth a look, if you can spare the time.
I was expecting a b-grade cheesefest, but, to my surprise, The Langoliers was actually pretty good. Not flawless, by any means, but not terrible either. It's got a fascinating concept, and it constructs an intriguing atmosphere of mystery and suspense. Ten people wake up on a commercial flight to find everyone else vanished, and then have to figure out what the hell is going on. I guess this is a spoiler, but it turns out to be some kind of temporal anomaly, involving cosmic entities that devour reality!
Awesome, right? As for the flaws, the poor CGI can't be ignored. Granted, I still think the monsters (the "Langoliers") look badass, and that almost makes up for the bad CGI. Their behavior could use a little polish, maybe, but there's a solid kernel there in their conception. The other major flaw is the runtime. It's a[nother] 3 hour long TV miniseries, and that, really, is more time than the movie needs to tell its story. As such, it drags on quite a bit. I think a feature film remake pared down to under two hours, with better creature effects and an updated cast could do wonders for this story.
Even so, it's not half as bad as its reputation, and it offers a fresh perspective on the subject of time travel, and the nature of time, that is bound to get your noggin going. It's worth a look, if you can spare the time.
Right At Your Door (2006)
I read a little about Right At Your Door when it came out several years ago, and it's been on my watchlist ever since, though I only just now got around to watching it. As the poster describes, it's an "apocalyptic thriller" that unfolds like a disaster movie, but narrowly focused on one man's experiences at his house on the outskirts of Los Angeles in the wake of a terrorist attack that unleashes clouds of toxic ash on the city and surrounding areas. "Harrowing" is a pretty good adjective for this movie. It definitely plays into fears of a post-9/11 America, and while adopting all the cues of an epidemic movie, it manages to distinguish itself and stay fresh in its approach and perspective.
It's a very tense movie that evolves naturally, and had my heart beating rapidly, especially at the start when the shit first hits the fan, and again at the shocking climax when things come to a head. It has a few slow moments in between, but there's nothing wrong with that, as the ordeal does involve sitting things out while the officials get their asses in gear and decide how to deal with the calamity. There are some human moments in there, too - as to be expected - some of which raise some difficult questions about what you would do in such a terrible situation. But it's the horror of the premise, effectively executed, that makes this ride more than worth its while. I count it one of the better horror movies of the 21st century.
It's a very tense movie that evolves naturally, and had my heart beating rapidly, especially at the start when the shit first hits the fan, and again at the shocking climax when things come to a head. It has a few slow moments in between, but there's nothing wrong with that, as the ordeal does involve sitting things out while the officials get their asses in gear and decide how to deal with the calamity. There are some human moments in there, too - as to be expected - some of which raise some difficult questions about what you would do in such a terrible situation. But it's the horror of the premise, effectively executed, that makes this ride more than worth its while. I count it one of the better horror movies of the 21st century.
Friday, October 10, 2014
The Lair of the White Worm (1988)
It's unfortunate that this movie doesn't have a more respectable reputation. Are people so immature that they can't take the concept of a virgin sacrificing cult of giant snake worshippers seriously? That they feel compelled to laugh at the visual effects rather than allow their imaginations to get absorbed into them (and for all their limitations, the effects are pretty effective)? The movie is not pretentious - it doesn't take itself too seriously, and incorporates a good bit of humor - but at the same time, the concepts involved are fascinating, and its execution as a film is very well accomplished
Certainly more so than I was expecting, going partly off its reputation, and partly off my vague memories of it. I swear I saw this film once on television when I was young, and I hadn't remembered it until coming across it more recently. It made an impression on me for its unflinchingly erotic approach to the subject matter, and it's probably one of my earliest memories of seeing nudity on film, and may in no small part have contributed to my interest in erotic fantasies involving pagan rituals concerned with virgin sacrifice.
You might be surprised to learn that The Lair of the White Worm is actually adapted from a Bram Stoker story (not Dracula, obviously) - albeit one that doesn't have so great a reputation. The movie begins with a Scottish archaeologist (Peter Capaldi) finding the skull of what appears to be a giant snake dating back to the Roman occupation of Britain. Local legend tells of the "D'ampton Worm", a giant snake that was named for the man who slew it (whose descendant is played by Hugh Grant). Stories of dragons (and their slayers) and other mythological creatures are not uncommon in the English countryside. But some recent disappearances seem to lend evidence that maybe some offspring of the legendary D'ampton Worm has survived underground in a nearby cavern.
Enter Lady Sylvia Marsh, who wastes no time revealing to the audience that she is some kind of priestess of a cult that worships the serpent - representing Lucifer, and manifesting in the form of a white worm that tormented Jesus on the cross, and may live on even today as the descendant of the D'ampton Worm. Unlike the Christians, this snake cult seems to revel in their own sexuality, and Amanda Donohoe seems reassuringly comfortable in the highly fetishized role of the priestess. I would be willing to bet, on the other hand, that the only reason the virgin sacrifice is stripped only to her underwear is because the actress that played her had a "no nudity" clause in her contract. Which is really rather unfortunate. Prudish movie critics always complain that nudity or sexual scenes are not "necessary" to the plot, but this sort of thing (and it is frequent in movies) just takes away from the story.
It would be easy to write this movie off (as many do) as a cheesy softcore porno with a ridiculous plot and silly effects. But frankly, I think the plot is intriguing (who doesn't love a bit of cryptozoology?), and the characters and their dialogue and their motivations are all refreshingly logical and believable. I watched it for reasons of nostalgia, but was pleasantly surprised to find that it is a decent movie in its own right - both fun, and engrossing. It's not "so bad, it's good"; I genuinely think that it's just plain good. I recommend it with confidence.
Certainly more so than I was expecting, going partly off its reputation, and partly off my vague memories of it. I swear I saw this film once on television when I was young, and I hadn't remembered it until coming across it more recently. It made an impression on me for its unflinchingly erotic approach to the subject matter, and it's probably one of my earliest memories of seeing nudity on film, and may in no small part have contributed to my interest in erotic fantasies involving pagan rituals concerned with virgin sacrifice.
You might be surprised to learn that The Lair of the White Worm is actually adapted from a Bram Stoker story (not Dracula, obviously) - albeit one that doesn't have so great a reputation. The movie begins with a Scottish archaeologist (Peter Capaldi) finding the skull of what appears to be a giant snake dating back to the Roman occupation of Britain. Local legend tells of the "D'ampton Worm", a giant snake that was named for the man who slew it (whose descendant is played by Hugh Grant). Stories of dragons (and their slayers) and other mythological creatures are not uncommon in the English countryside. But some recent disappearances seem to lend evidence that maybe some offspring of the legendary D'ampton Worm has survived underground in a nearby cavern.
Enter Lady Sylvia Marsh, who wastes no time revealing to the audience that she is some kind of priestess of a cult that worships the serpent - representing Lucifer, and manifesting in the form of a white worm that tormented Jesus on the cross, and may live on even today as the descendant of the D'ampton Worm. Unlike the Christians, this snake cult seems to revel in their own sexuality, and Amanda Donohoe seems reassuringly comfortable in the highly fetishized role of the priestess. I would be willing to bet, on the other hand, that the only reason the virgin sacrifice is stripped only to her underwear is because the actress that played her had a "no nudity" clause in her contract. Which is really rather unfortunate. Prudish movie critics always complain that nudity or sexual scenes are not "necessary" to the plot, but this sort of thing (and it is frequent in movies) just takes away from the story.
It would be easy to write this movie off (as many do) as a cheesy softcore porno with a ridiculous plot and silly effects. But frankly, I think the plot is intriguing (who doesn't love a bit of cryptozoology?), and the characters and their dialogue and their motivations are all refreshingly logical and believable. I watched it for reasons of nostalgia, but was pleasantly surprised to find that it is a decent movie in its own right - both fun, and engrossing. It's not "so bad, it's good"; I genuinely think that it's just plain good. I recommend it with confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)