The Omen is one of those films who's 'classic' status completely mystifies me - with the exception of one or two scenes (one, if I'm honest) the movie completely fails to hold, or even get, my attention.
If anyone is both reading this, and doesn't know the plot of The Omen (two things unlikely enough separately, yet alone together), it tells of an American diplomat Robert thorn (Gregory Peck) stationed in Rome. Robert's wife Katherine (Lee Remick) gives birth to a boy, who he is told dies moments after being born. Robert is convinced by the hospital chaplain, to illicitly adopt an orphan whose mother died at the same time.
Fearing by that his wife couldn't cope with the loss of thier child, he agrees to secretly adopt the boy, and tell no one. They call the boy Damien, and as I'm sure you already know (unless you've been living under a rock your entire life) he is the anti-Christ.
Sadly what follows is not the apocalypse, there are no appearances from the four horsemen, no trumpets sound, faithful Christians do not ascend in droves; instead, some slightly creepy stuff happens around the child for the next hour and a half, then the movie ends.
The bible jump-cuts from The Christ being born, to him being an adult and doing Christ-stuff; biblical scholars have debated why so much of his story - his entire childhood, no less, goes untold. I put it to them that the answer lies in The Omen; the early life of a Demi-God is simply not that noteworthy, and the film feels very much like an overly long introduction.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Friday, 17 April 2015
Sunday, 21 September 2014
The Devils - Lisa's Review
*** SPOILERS ***
I started this one with relatively high expectations as the hubby said he had watched it and enjoyed it. I'm sort of torn with how to review it. I'll come out right away - I hated it. Does that mean everyone will hate it? I guess not.
So to the premise. We are in 17th century France, all the fortifications are being torn down by King Louis XIII under the advice of Cardinal Richelieu, to prevent the Protestants uprising. That is as much history as you're going to get. One towns walls however remain intact - Loudon, which is now governed by a revered priest Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed) following the death of the town Governer. Loudon seems to be full of corrupt members of the church (no surprise there) and sexually frustrated nuns who are members of an enclosed convent.
I started this one with relatively high expectations as the hubby said he had watched it and enjoyed it. I'm sort of torn with how to review it. I'll come out right away - I hated it. Does that mean everyone will hate it? I guess not.
So to the premise. We are in 17th century France, all the fortifications are being torn down by King Louis XIII under the advice of Cardinal Richelieu, to prevent the Protestants uprising. That is as much history as you're going to get. One towns walls however remain intact - Loudon, which is now governed by a revered priest Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed) following the death of the town Governer. Loudon seems to be full of corrupt members of the church (no surprise there) and sexually frustrated nuns who are members of an enclosed convent.
Saturday, 9 November 2013
God Told Me To - Will's Review.
I am bored stupid by police procedural dramas (CSI and it's ilk), but for some reason slap any kind of twist in there, and suddenly I'm won over (Lie to Me, The Mentalist); so the first third of this movie had me right on side.
Opening with a sniper taking out civilians in New York, we are introduced to Peter, a detective with NYPD. When Peter goes up to talk to the sniper, things are going well, until he asks the sniper why he had done this. The sniper simply offers "God told me to" then jumps to his death.
Opening with a sniper taking out civilians in New York, we are introduced to Peter, a detective with NYPD. When Peter goes up to talk to the sniper, things are going well, until he asks the sniper why he had done this. The sniper simply offers "God told me to" then jumps to his death.
Slowly more reports of mass killings begin to come in, and in all cases the killer claims "God told me to".
This is where the police procedural stuff comes in, as we follow Peter in his investigation. He eventually discovers that all of the killers had spoken to the same man not long before commuting the acts, and he starts trying to look into this man's history.
It's an incredibly 70's movie; not in the lava-lamps and acid way, but in the way of good cops, crooked cops, eccentrically dressed (black) pimps, and fights in pool halls. See also the fashion, hair, and that very particular editing technique that has dated 70s drama in a specific
So far so appealing, even tapping into some of my anti-theistic leanings... What I this man really is God or the second coming, but he's just having people mindlessly killed?
Sadly, about a third of the way in, Peter's investigation takes a turn for the (low-rent) X-Files, as he gets second an third hand tales about a woman (possibly the man's mother) who sounds suspiciously like she was abducted by aliens.
By the final act the movie has degenerated into nonsensical sci-fi wank. It's a crying shame, because until this point it was an interesting (if unusual) movie.
This is where the police procedural stuff comes in, as we follow Peter in his investigation. He eventually discovers that all of the killers had spoken to the same man not long before commuting the acts, and he starts trying to look into this man's history.
It's an incredibly 70's movie; not in the lava-lamps and acid way, but in the way of good cops, crooked cops, eccentrically dressed (black) pimps, and fights in pool halls. See also the fashion, hair, and that very particular editing technique that has dated 70s drama in a specific
So far so appealing, even tapping into some of my anti-theistic leanings... What I this man really is God or the second coming, but he's just having people mindlessly killed?
Sadly, about a third of the way in, Peter's investigation takes a turn for the (low-rent) X-Files, as he gets second an third hand tales about a woman (possibly the man's mother) who sounds suspiciously like she was abducted by aliens.
By the final act the movie has degenerated into nonsensical sci-fi wank. It's a crying shame, because until this point it was an interesting (if unusual) movie.
Saturday, 27 July 2013
Mark of the Devil - Lisa's Review
*** Spoilers ***
I'm not going to spend a long time on this one. For me the high point was that it had Udo Kier in it! A very young Mr Kier, but the intensity is still there.
If you think Witchfinder General with gore and tits and you've pretty much summed this one up.
The movie basically centers around the torturing and murder of what seems any attractive young person, both male and female (but mostly female) who is suspected to be a witch. These acts are ordered by an evil Lord Cumberland, all under the guise of religion and god. We also have one of the most horrid men I've ever set eyes on - Albino, who concocts acts these poor women are supposed to have carried out (all untrue) just so he can brand them as witches and rape and torture them.
Udo plays a very young apprentice/pupil Count Christian Von Meruh. He is the supposed 'good guy'... well as good as you're going to get in this movie. Kier inevitably falls in love with one of the accused young women and starts to question the practices and what is going on.
What follows is what you would expect from this sort of movie. Tortures depicted include: Flogging, water torture, stabbing with skewers, chair of torture, the rack, thumb screws, burning at the stake and a tongue being ripped out. There are also rapes depicted.
Reviews I've read of this movie seem to rate it quite highly and feel that it is much more than an exploitation movie. True, there is more to it than that. It does depict the individuals responsible as horrible creatures and does point the finger very squarely at religion, so I suppose there is a moral message of sorts, but I just didn't enjoy this movie.
I didn't like how it 'felt'. To me, the way it was shot, the lingering on the suffering and the unnecessary nudity in places, which added nothing to the scenes or story, just felt a bit exploitative in the wrong kind of way to me. Maybe it was just how I saw it. Maybe I was in 'one of those moods', but the movie just didn't sit well with me. I felt like I was watching torture scenes which were filmed with the intention of being arousing. It certainly felt like the director had purely a male audience in mind when he put this together.
Aside from all of this, it was hideously overacted and hammy in several places. I just found myself feeling impatient and irritated by it.
I think this is just one of those movies that was a matter of personal taste for me. I'm more than willing to accept a lot of people may enjoy this movie, I am just not one of them.
Won't tag this as 'avoid' down to purely my own personal taste, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.
I'm not going to spend a long time on this one. For me the high point was that it had Udo Kier in it! A very young Mr Kier, but the intensity is still there.
If you think Witchfinder General with gore and tits and you've pretty much summed this one up.
The movie basically centers around the torturing and murder of what seems any attractive young person, both male and female (but mostly female) who is suspected to be a witch. These acts are ordered by an evil Lord Cumberland, all under the guise of religion and god. We also have one of the most horrid men I've ever set eyes on - Albino, who concocts acts these poor women are supposed to have carried out (all untrue) just so he can brand them as witches and rape and torture them.
Udo plays a very young apprentice/pupil Count Christian Von Meruh. He is the supposed 'good guy'... well as good as you're going to get in this movie. Kier inevitably falls in love with one of the accused young women and starts to question the practices and what is going on.
What follows is what you would expect from this sort of movie. Tortures depicted include: Flogging, water torture, stabbing with skewers, chair of torture, the rack, thumb screws, burning at the stake and a tongue being ripped out. There are also rapes depicted.
Reviews I've read of this movie seem to rate it quite highly and feel that it is much more than an exploitation movie. True, there is more to it than that. It does depict the individuals responsible as horrible creatures and does point the finger very squarely at religion, so I suppose there is a moral message of sorts, but I just didn't enjoy this movie.
I didn't like how it 'felt'. To me, the way it was shot, the lingering on the suffering and the unnecessary nudity in places, which added nothing to the scenes or story, just felt a bit exploitative in the wrong kind of way to me. Maybe it was just how I saw it. Maybe I was in 'one of those moods', but the movie just didn't sit well with me. I felt like I was watching torture scenes which were filmed with the intention of being arousing. It certainly felt like the director had purely a male audience in mind when he put this together.
Aside from all of this, it was hideously overacted and hammy in several places. I just found myself feeling impatient and irritated by it.
I think this is just one of those movies that was a matter of personal taste for me. I'm more than willing to accept a lot of people may enjoy this movie, I am just not one of them.
Won't tag this as 'avoid' down to purely my own personal taste, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it.
Saturday, 26 January 2013
The Virgin Spring - Lisa's Review
***SPOILERS ***
A movie this week I don't think I would have ever chosen to watch having read the premis. That's the good thing about doing these movie challenges, you get to see movies, you would never otherwise have watched.
I'm not going to do a blow by blow account of the movie. This is the Swedish movie made in 1960, that 'Last House on the Left' was based on. Although there are very good things to be said about both LHOTL movies (1972 and 2009), this movie is an altogether different experience. Whereas I would describe its successors are exploitation movies, this is not on any level. Its a deep movie that makes you think, that does disturb you, but in a different way.
To start with the cinematography in this movie is just beautiful! It is a joy to watch aesthetically. From a story point of view its heartbreaking. We see the young, beautiful, but very naive and innocent daughter (Karin) of a religious couple raped and murdered by 2 herdsmen when she is delivering candles to a church. This is all witnessed by her pregnant adoptive sister and maid (who is stunningly beautiful it has to be said) and a young boy who is with the herdsmen.
Unwittingly the men seek shelter at the girls parents home and try to sell the clothes they stripped off her body after they had killed her, alerting them to what had happened.
The parents being deeply religious people opens up all sorts of questions when they seek revenge for their daughters murder and kill the herdsmen. The father seems to question his faith when wondering how something like this could possibly happen, but at the same time he wants to make up to god for what he has done, so he promises to build a church on the site of where his daughters body was found. A virgin spring has sprung forth from where she was found and her parents heartbreakingly wash their daughter in it.
I found this movie very thought provoking and beautiful to watch. My skin crawled towards the herdsmen characters. They were repugnant. The actual rape scene was horrid and although not graphic, it was very matter of fact and to the point. There is no soundtrack to this movie. No music to set a mood, or to tell us how we should feel or cover an uncomfortable scene with peril. This made the rape scene all the more nasty for me.
The murder of Karin and the herdsmen is again very to the point and not blood thirsty but is oddly effective. I liked how fire was used in a scene with one of the herdsmen and the reality of how the father throws the young boy against a wall in his grief.
This movie is certainly not for everyone, but I for one enjoyed it. It was very different from anything I have watched before and I found it refreshingly different. I would recommend it to all movie fans who like to unearth little hidden treasures.
Thumbs up from me.
A movie this week I don't think I would have ever chosen to watch having read the premis. That's the good thing about doing these movie challenges, you get to see movies, you would never otherwise have watched.
I'm not going to do a blow by blow account of the movie. This is the Swedish movie made in 1960, that 'Last House on the Left' was based on. Although there are very good things to be said about both LHOTL movies (1972 and 2009), this movie is an altogether different experience. Whereas I would describe its successors are exploitation movies, this is not on any level. Its a deep movie that makes you think, that does disturb you, but in a different way.
To start with the cinematography in this movie is just beautiful! It is a joy to watch aesthetically. From a story point of view its heartbreaking. We see the young, beautiful, but very naive and innocent daughter (Karin) of a religious couple raped and murdered by 2 herdsmen when she is delivering candles to a church. This is all witnessed by her pregnant adoptive sister and maid (who is stunningly beautiful it has to be said) and a young boy who is with the herdsmen.
Unwittingly the men seek shelter at the girls parents home and try to sell the clothes they stripped off her body after they had killed her, alerting them to what had happened.
The parents being deeply religious people opens up all sorts of questions when they seek revenge for their daughters murder and kill the herdsmen. The father seems to question his faith when wondering how something like this could possibly happen, but at the same time he wants to make up to god for what he has done, so he promises to build a church on the site of where his daughters body was found. A virgin spring has sprung forth from where she was found and her parents heartbreakingly wash their daughter in it.
I found this movie very thought provoking and beautiful to watch. My skin crawled towards the herdsmen characters. They were repugnant. The actual rape scene was horrid and although not graphic, it was very matter of fact and to the point. There is no soundtrack to this movie. No music to set a mood, or to tell us how we should feel or cover an uncomfortable scene with peril. This made the rape scene all the more nasty for me.
The murder of Karin and the herdsmen is again very to the point and not blood thirsty but is oddly effective. I liked how fire was used in a scene with one of the herdsmen and the reality of how the father throws the young boy against a wall in his grief.
This movie is certainly not for everyone, but I for one enjoyed it. It was very different from anything I have watched before and I found it refreshingly different. I would recommend it to all movie fans who like to unearth little hidden treasures.
Thumbs up from me.
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Island of Death - Will's Review
Well, I'll say one thing for this - It was indeed a Nasty.
Not all that graphic, but look at this checklist: Rape, Male Rape,Golden Showers, a 50-year old nude, bestiality, someone gets nailed to the floor and made to drink paint, stabbings, shootings, beheading via heavy machinery, limestone burns, incest, racism, homophobia, drugs, hanging, water sports (and I don't mean surfing), strangulation, public sex, goat slaughter... It's like they were trying to piss of the censors!
Oh. and the thing that really cracks me up; this one briefly got (accidentally) removed from the list, after someone watched "Who can Kill A Child" (Alternate title "The Island of Death") and though that was this!
The Plot involves a British, Christopher and Celia couple visiting an island in Greece, one which Christopher especially approves of due to its high number of churches and presumed Godly people. The couple (again, mainly Christopher) decides to cleanse the island of its ungodly - Those they deem perverts, such as Drug addicts, homosexuals, people who have the audacity to flirt with the Celia after being explicitly told she is single...
Oddly though, their righteous attitude doesn't come from a very pure place; They have sex in a phone box, and phone his mother to tell her what they are doing, they often seduce their victims before offing them, and they photograph their crimes and masturbate to the pictures - it is even Christopher who preforms the above mentioned goat rape! In short, they are not so much righteous, as messed up.
They mention having done similar in London, and are tracked and followed by a man who suspects them to be killers (is he a cop? We never find out) - this for me was the films biggest letdown, I wanted to know more of the backstory; why are they like this? Who is the guy following them? Why does Christopher think that red books bring him luck - This feels like a sequel rather than a stand alone movie.
All that said, although It could have been gorier, some of the kills here are pretty unique, and if you're after an intro to video nasties, you could do a lot worse!
Body Count: 9
Boob Count: 6 Pairs
Animal Body Count: 1
Most memorable Death: Jus' hangin' out on a rented plane...
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.
Not all that graphic, but look at this checklist: Rape, Male Rape,Golden Showers, a 50-year old nude, bestiality, someone gets nailed to the floor and made to drink paint, stabbings, shootings, beheading via heavy machinery, limestone burns, incest, racism, homophobia, drugs, hanging, water sports (and I don't mean surfing), strangulation, public sex, goat slaughter... It's like they were trying to piss of the censors!
Oh. and the thing that really cracks me up; this one briefly got (accidentally) removed from the list, after someone watched "Who can Kill A Child" (Alternate title "The Island of Death") and though that was this!
The Plot involves a British, Christopher and Celia couple visiting an island in Greece, one which Christopher especially approves of due to its high number of churches and presumed Godly people. The couple (again, mainly Christopher) decides to cleanse the island of its ungodly - Those they deem perverts, such as Drug addicts, homosexuals, people who have the audacity to flirt with the Celia after being explicitly told she is single...
Oddly though, their righteous attitude doesn't come from a very pure place; They have sex in a phone box, and phone his mother to tell her what they are doing, they often seduce their victims before offing them, and they photograph their crimes and masturbate to the pictures - it is even Christopher who preforms the above mentioned goat rape! In short, they are not so much righteous, as messed up.
They mention having done similar in London, and are tracked and followed by a man who suspects them to be killers (is he a cop? We never find out) - this for me was the films biggest letdown, I wanted to know more of the backstory; why are they like this? Who is the guy following them? Why does Christopher think that red books bring him luck - This feels like a sequel rather than a stand alone movie.
All that said, although It could have been gorier, some of the kills here are pretty unique, and if you're after an intro to video nasties, you could do a lot worse!
Body Count: 9
Boob Count: 6 Pairs
Animal Body Count: 1
Most memorable Death: Jus' hangin' out on a rented plane...
Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)