News|Movies|BD & DVD|Writings|Other

USA/UK: Richard Donner, 1976; IMDB

USA/Australia: Baz Luhrmann, 2001; IMDB

USA: Michael Dougherty, 2007; IMDB

USA: William Friedkin, 1973; IMDB

The first time I saw William Friedkin's THE EXORCIST was in March 2001, when it got its first ever airing on UK TV (two years after the British Board of Film Censors finally saw fit to unban it). To be honest, I wasn't all that impressed. I don't think it could ever have lived up to the hype surrounding it, but I remember feeling incredibly disappointed when it finished. Since then, I've seen it again twice and liked it a little more each time, as well as read the novel on which it is based. I enjoyed the novel, and hoped that revisiting the film for a fourth time, this time on BD, might be enough to tip it over the edge for me.

Regrettably not. I would never claim it to be a bad film, but for me it's simply not the masterpiece others consider it to be. I find it rather cold and empty, consisting of choppy snippets and subplots that don't gel together, as if screenwriter/novelist William Peter Blatty felt he absolutely had to throw in EVERYTHING from the novel. The script has a habit of jumping over large chunks and then TELLING you afterwards what you've missed. The most egregious example is the death of Damien's mother: in one scene, we see her confined to a psychiatric hospital but very much alive; in the next, we're told by another character that she died in her home and wasn't found for two days. The bits I appreciate the most are mainly technical in nature - Regan's transformation (a mixture of make-up and animatronics), the subliminal images, the shot of Max Von Sydow arriving at the house (which graces just about every home video cover, and rightly so)... the use of Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells"... the performances, which are solid across the board... It's what I'd call a well-made movie, which basically means I can appreciate the skill that is readily apparent on both sides of the camera, even if the end result leaves me a bit cold.

Admittedly, I find it hard not to compare the film unfavourably with THE OMEN, a similarly "high-brow" take on the demonic possession subset of the horror genre by a major Hollywood studio, and for me what separates the two of them is their approach to the subject matter. Biblical quotations aside, THE OMEN doesn't try to pretend it's something it isn't. It knows exactly what it is: an extremely glossly, technically accomplished rollercoaster ride with a star-studded cast and one of the best scores ever to grace a horror film. It is, in a sense, classy schlock. It sets out to entertain, and it succeeds in spades. THE EXORCIST, meanwhile, sets out to brow-beat you into submission. It takes itself incredibly seriously and has a keenly developed sense of its own (self-)importance. Now, I don't object to films taking themselves seriously, but THE EXORCIST veers a little too close to hitting the viewer over the head with the "This is serious stuff, dammit!" stick for my liking... and when that serious stuff is something as fanciful as demonic possession, and the poo-pooing of medicine in favour of rituals and chanting, I'm inclined to think a less preachy touch would have gone down better... with me, at any rate. I could name a number of atheists who love this film, but I've also seen many people claim that you can't possibly appreciate the film fully unless you believe in what it portrays. That may be so, but it doesn't compel me to look on it any more favourably (and I think it's a fairly weak defence, in any rate - a lack of belief in hobbits and elves didn't stop millions from flocking to THE LORD OF THE RINGS).

In his video introduction, Friedkin says that you get out of THE EXORCIST exactly what you bring to it, and I'm inclined to agree with him. If you believe in demonic possession, this may well be one of the scariest films ever made. If like me, however, the very idea gives you a fit of the giggles, it becomes very hard to take Blatty and Friedkin's stern tone with the solemnity they so clearly wanted.

USA: Baz Luhrmann, 1996; IMDB

USA/Australia: Gary Fleder, 2001; IMDB

USA: Michael Mann, 1992; IMDB

USA: Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise, 1991; IMDB

It's interesting but not altogether surprising that, whenever people discuss Disney's animation renaissance, the impression is often given that BEAUTY AND THE BEAST immediately followed THE LITTLE MERMAID, credited with having launched the studio's "second golden age". THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER lies sandwiched in between them - a bizarre anomaly in the studio's "classics" roster and the sort of title that, a decade later, would have been cranked out by the TV animation division and relegated to the direct to video market. I mention this because there's such a huge gulf between MERMAID and BEAST in terms of the crew's self-assurance (good as MERMAID is, it feels a lot more tentative and less consistent, both in terms of tone and production values) that it does well to remember that they didn't go straight from one to the other.

In terms of this particularly lauded period in Disney's history, ALADDIN gets my vote for the best all-round offering (I think THE LION KING is a tad overrated and find POCAHONTAS too po-faced and self-important to get much enjoyment out of it), but BEAST comes a close second. It manages to offer a bit of everything without the uncomfortable lurches in tone that would plague POCAHONTAS (which I've always suspected was commissioned in an unsuccessful attempt to bag the Oscar BEAST failed to win), and while the quality of the animation is a bit inconsistent (it would take until ALADDIN for this still somewhat inexperienced second generation of artists to deliver a REALLY polished product), it's very easy to overlook the odd bit of clumsiness in a film this entertaining. I still don't think the second golden age ever hit the heights of Disney animation in Walt's time, but as far as the studio's 90s takes on the "princess" formula are concerned, this is definitely as good as it gets.

UK: J. Blakeson, 2009; IMDB

Two men soundproof a room, head out, grab a young woman off the street, strip her and tie her to a bed. Oh, and they want a cool two million for her release.

That's about all I'm prepared to say about THE DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED, a minimalist thriller by first-time feature director J. Blakeson, shot on the Isle of Mann for under £1 million. Blakeson, whose previous credits include contributions to the script for the underwhelming THE DESCENT: PART 2, clearly know's how to rack up the tension and throws enough twists at the audience to ensure that the situation is constantly changing, neatly sidestepping the potential for monotony - a major concern in a film that is basically limited to a cast of three in a single location. It asks for a lot and more importantly GETS a lot from its three actors, with Martin Compston getting the toughest, most complicated role of the three.

The film has been promoted heavily around Alice Creed herself, played by up-and-comer du jour Gemma Arterton, but while she's very good in the role, she may actually be the least impressive of the trio. In what is a very naturalistic film in every sense of the word, her performance comes off a little too much like acting, if that makes any sense. Still, it's a brave performance and a brave film all round, milking every drop out of its limited budget, cast and array of locations, resulting in a film that probably won't set the world on fire but is one of the better British-originated genre offerings I've seen recently.

USA/Australia: Neil Jordan, 2007; IMDB