Whoo-hoo! An overblown horror sequel, I haven't watched one of these since I started recording my thoughts on here. I love and hate these in equal measure because they tend to be entertainingly and depressingly mindless. Again in equal measure.
All of the ingredients are in place- a Hollywood great in a lead role (in this case William Holden), an over-the-top musical score by Jerry Goldsmith and a ludicrous plot which touches only occasionally on plausibility and is designed to facilitate increasingly garish and lurid deaths- the Omen series seems to specialise in decapitations.
Okay, on with the ludicrous plot. Damien- the devil's son- has killed everyone who came to suspect his true identity and is being raised by his wealthy uncle. In the first film a black dog appeared whenever someone was about to die, I think the dog must've already had filming commitments for another movie as that most pivotal of roles has now been taken by a crow. It works like this- a scene looks normal, the crow appears accompanied by bombastic music, someone who suspects Damien's true identity dies. In fact, one bloke dies just for trying to stop one of Damien's acolytes (a bloke off Falcon Crest) from restricting the supply of foods to starving nations.
The deaths are the reason that people go to see these things and they range from the sublime (a Doctor finds that Damien has the cell structure of a jackal and takes a lift pressing to go down but the lift takes the doctor to the top floor and then plummets causing the Doctor to be chopped in half as he lies on the floor) to the ridiculous (A reporter in a fabulous red coat tries to warn Damien's adopted parents after seeing his face in a painting by a thirteenth century prophet- she is blinded by the crow in a fantastically unrealistic scene and staggers in front of a huge juggernaut which she seemingly can't hear and which doesn't stop after turning her into roadkill).
My favourite, though, is the opening scene where Rumpole and the bloke who Michael Caine chases down by the slagheaps in Get Carter are crushed by a falling roof after seeing a painting of the devil that supposedly looks like Damien. It doesn't really: Damien - Painting. See?
The best part of the film is when a growing number of people learn of Damien's secret identity. William Holden is already having serious doubts- I expect being told that your adopted son has the same cell structure as a jackal would do that to you- and an employee of Holden's gets hold of Rumpole's evidence (dug out of the collapsed archaeological site) and rushes to tell him. Holden refuses to listen but his son Mark- Damien's closest friend- overhears and is convinced. Damien's adopted mother is told by Holden what has gone on but doesn't believe it.
Now that there are at least three possible candidates for the morgue, the pressure is really cranking up - it's like eviction night in the Big Brother house. Who will get offed first? And how? The deaths have been increasingly elaborate and exciting, can it get any better than being bisected on an elevator floor? No. Of course it can't. It was silly to even hope for it.
Mark goes out for a walk in the snow and is followed by Damien (and an ominous orchestra). They argue when Mark refuses to join the devil's gang and then the music stops while Damien tortures him by looking at him till his ears hurt and he falls down dead. A-ha I was right, they blew the budget on the lift scene as there are no special effects at all- not even music- just a kid clasping his hands to his ears and then falling over. Wank. Total wank.
Anyway, they all have to go now that they know- William Holden goes to visit his employee wearing a Burberry scarf and together they look at the thirteenth century painting which has been loaded onto a train. As he waits outside, the employee is crushed between a runaway train and a stationary one. William has seen the painting and seen the dead man. He knows that Damien is the son of the devil and rushes back to meet his wife and Damien at the museum where the knives that Gregory Peck tried to kill Damien with in the original are held. Now I'd have fucking legged it sharpish but that's why William Holden is a matinee idol and I'm a movie freak- he's got king-sized balls and he doesn't sweat killing Beelzebub in front of the devil's adopted mother. But stabs him dead first with the sarcastic words "there are your daggers". She'd make a good James Bond. if she wasn't in league with the devil- who also happens to be her son. Anyway, in gratitude Damien burns her and the museum to the ground. So now that everyone bar Damien is dead, the evidence is destroyed and the weapons that can kill him are gone up in flames the film ends. Good.
It's preposterous and it's supposed to be but it's just not unsettling and it's supposed to be. Accomplishing both- as the original did- would be an 8/10. Getting it half-right nets it a 4/10.
Monday 29 September 2008
Friday 26 September 2008
The Parallax View (1974)
Personally, I love a conspiracy theory. And I love the paranoid thrillers of the 1970s- most notably Polanski's 'Chinatown', Coppola's 'The Conversation' and 'All The President's Men' by Alan J Pakula. This film, also by Pakula, is less epic than those classics but is still pretty strong.
Warren Beatty stars (this is the important Beatty that I've read about in 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' and not the joke figure he became) and is pivotal. He's probably in over 50% of the shots over the whole course of the movie. And I think that's the problem, it isn't his performance- which is excellent- but the fact that Alan Pakula builds the movie around Beatty's character so that the viewer identifies strongly with him. The downside of this is that it excludes everyone else and some strong performances, most notably from Hume Cronyn, don't get the material that they merit. This is an hour and a half movie that would have benefitted from the addition of background colour taking it up to two hours.
The cinematography is excellent, the performances are strong, the story is fine- but it's one-dimensional. It is a good movie- 7/10- but the director would've done better to be a little more ambitious. As he indeed would be a couple of years later with 'All The President's Men'.
Warren Beatty stars (this is the important Beatty that I've read about in 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' and not the joke figure he became) and is pivotal. He's probably in over 50% of the shots over the whole course of the movie. And I think that's the problem, it isn't his performance- which is excellent- but the fact that Alan Pakula builds the movie around Beatty's character so that the viewer identifies strongly with him. The downside of this is that it excludes everyone else and some strong performances, most notably from Hume Cronyn, don't get the material that they merit. This is an hour and a half movie that would have benefitted from the addition of background colour taking it up to two hours.
The cinematography is excellent, the performances are strong, the story is fine- but it's one-dimensional. It is a good movie- 7/10- but the director would've done better to be a little more ambitious. As he indeed would be a couple of years later with 'All The President's Men'.
Sunday 14 September 2008
Rasputin: The Mad Monk (1966)
All that I know about Rasputin (the historical figure) has be gleaned from the title of this Hammer movie and the bit I can remember from Boney M's disco hit "Rah-Rah-Rasputin, Russia's greatest love machine". So I'm in no position to verify the historical accuracy of the movie. And I don't care either way. I don't look to Hammer for historical facts, I look to them for entertainment. And this is entertaining. Entertaining crap.
Christopher Lee has a ball in the title role as a grubby, bearded, lecherous, womanising, brawling drunkard. Rasputin is everything that Dracula is not and Lee makes the most of the opportunity to cut loose . Aside from him, there is little to commend the movie- horror veteran Barbara Shelley does makes a great victim and the plot, such as it is, is entertaining enough. But you know that it's all guff.
Christopher Lee has a body-double for a dancing scene who is about half his size. In one scene there is a man in the background in contemporary clothes. In a pub full of bearded men- even Mr Barraclough from Porridge has a beard- one bloke stands around in a sixties side parting with neat sideburns. Not to worry, Rasputin chops his rubber hand off. He gets his in the end though when he is thrown out of the window and falls like the Clousea dummy that Dreyfuss beats up in his psychiatrist's office.
Anyway, this is a hammy Hammer. Completely OTT, entertaining throwaway nonsense. 4/10 including a bonus mark for Lee's obvious relish for his character.
One thing I really giggled over was the fact that Richard Pasco as Boris looked similar to Vladimir Putin. I wonder if Putin and Rasputin are related...
Christopher Lee has a ball in the title role as a grubby, bearded, lecherous, womanising, brawling drunkard. Rasputin is everything that Dracula is not and Lee makes the most of the opportunity to cut loose . Aside from him, there is little to commend the movie- horror veteran Barbara Shelley does makes a great victim and the plot, such as it is, is entertaining enough. But you know that it's all guff.
Christopher Lee has a body-double for a dancing scene who is about half his size. In one scene there is a man in the background in contemporary clothes. In a pub full of bearded men- even Mr Barraclough from Porridge has a beard- one bloke stands around in a sixties side parting with neat sideburns. Not to worry, Rasputin chops his rubber hand off. He gets his in the end though when he is thrown out of the window and falls like the Clousea dummy that Dreyfuss beats up in his psychiatrist's office.
Anyway, this is a hammy Hammer. Completely OTT, entertaining throwaway nonsense. 4/10 including a bonus mark for Lee's obvious relish for his character.
One thing I really giggled over was the fact that Richard Pasco as Boris looked similar to Vladimir Putin. I wonder if Putin and Rasputin are related...
Monday 1 September 2008
Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (1952)
Set in the roaring twenties and with exquisitely-scrupulous period detail, this is- if you want it to be- a lovable, comedy drama in the vein of a family who suddenly become rich beyond their wildest dreams.
On the other hand, it is a searing excoriation of the corrupting effect of wealth and the divisive and unjust influence of societal expectations and the class system.
Charles Coburn is outstanding as a wealthy man who inveigles his way into a family home before secretly endowing them with $100,000. The sight of him dancing the Charleston is a real treat. There are great turns too from a beautiful young Piper Laurie, Larry Gates as the bemused father, Lynn Bari and child-star Gigi Perreau. Even Rock Hudson holds his own.
The cinematography is exquisite, there are a few sparkling gags (Coburn on his own awful 'surrealist' painting- "hanging's too good for it") and the plot moves at pace and with no real predictable moments. Overall, it's a gem. 8/10.
On the other hand, it is a searing excoriation of the corrupting effect of wealth and the divisive and unjust influence of societal expectations and the class system.
Charles Coburn is outstanding as a wealthy man who inveigles his way into a family home before secretly endowing them with $100,000. The sight of him dancing the Charleston is a real treat. There are great turns too from a beautiful young Piper Laurie, Larry Gates as the bemused father, Lynn Bari and child-star Gigi Perreau. Even Rock Hudson holds his own.
The cinematography is exquisite, there are a few sparkling gags (Coburn on his own awful 'surrealist' painting- "hanging's too good for it") and the plot moves at pace and with no real predictable moments. Overall, it's a gem. 8/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)