Film Filter: Off- When I went to Blockbuster to rent this movie, the clerk told me it was really good, which I suppose was mistake number one: expectations. I was also thrilled that this movie fit into the little niche of a genre I dubbed as "theological thrillers", so I was even MORE pumped to watch it.
Pros- This movie does have a lot going for it. A lot of the cinematography is well done, with diverse screen shots and interesting scenery. I also enjoyed that, not unlike most church related films, there is a fair amount of symbolism. I wasn't quite sure about the symbolic nature of cats, so upon further research I found out that they symbolized the Underworld, and the supernatural. It was obviously very fitting, then, that felines roamed the exterior of the house where most of the film took place. There is also a reference to the crucifixion, when those about to become possessed regurgitate three nails. Lastly, the movie starts out with some information pertaining to St. Michael and how he drove the evil spirits out of heaven when Lucifer was cast out. It is no coincidence, then, that our disbelieving protagonist should be named: Michael. Michael also translates to: one who is like God in Hebrew.
Phew! On to acting...I think the young male lead does a nice job of being a skeptic, almost too good a job. In the same breath, I had heard through the grapevine that Anthony Hopkins was not terribly fond of his role in the film and although I can see why, he carried it out nicely.
Cons- This movie, in my humble opinion, had a few tragic flaws that made it inconsistent. All biases aside, I think it's a good film, but I have to be honest that how I feel about those few inconsistencies lost it some points.
First of all, when Michael is giving last rites to a dying woman, he performs prayer in Latin with some of THE WORST Latin diction I have heard. Perhaps it was planned to show his immaturity in the religion, as he was so young, but it irked the crap out of me.
Regarding plot, I felt that it was a little bit odd that Michael kept challenging everything about possession. I can understand that the movie was trying to portray him as the devil's advocate, but some of it got to be so illogical that it blew my mind. First of all, Michael is a man of the cloth. Despite his wishes to not become a priest, he had to have had some strong convictions in order to have made it as far as he did, so the fact that he can merely dismiss all of it because he changed his mind is a little odd to me. It's not like he was hearing about the exorcisms second or third hand either, he was witnessing them with his own eyes. I'd think seeing would be believing enough, even for someone NOT of the church, let alone to one who has taken on a calling that requires an innate amount of faith.
The next bit of beef I have with the plot is that Hopkins' character, Lucas, gets possessed. I found it a bit odd that a priest would become possessed...especially since so many films reference demons and spirits being attracted to those either weak in physical or spiritual nature. I had been counterattacked with the argument that it was God's plan to allow the possession to happen, so that Michael could understand his true calling. Although a plausible concept, I strongly doubt that God would go through such great lengths, and dangerous ones at that, to allow someone to understand their calling. I mean, if Michael is going to sit in the corner and make up excuses for everything he sees rather than believing it, I'm not sure anything is going to persuade him otherwise.
Wrap up- This movie is interesting, for sure. I was a little bummed because I was expecting more action in the actual exorcisms, and not so much dialogue and faith-building. As long as you're prepared to not be spooked (because it's not scary) or riveted on the edge of your seat (because there's no action) you should enjoy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment