Category: cinema

Nosferatu

Directed by

Robert Eggers

2024

In 1922, the first version of Nosfetatu was released starring Max Schreck.The filmmakers were sued by the widow of Bram Stoker, the author of Dracula which was published in 1897. In truth, Nosferatu was a ripoff of Stoker’s novel with the names of characters changed. Dracula became Count Orlok.

Stoker’s widow won the lawsuit but fortunately prints of the film survived despite court orders to destroy them. The 1922 film served as forerunner to Bela Lugosi’s Dracula which was released in 1931. In 1979, Nosferatu was remade in German and that version of the film remains a horror classic.

Now we have another remake and this is excellent as well. This was a fun and creepy film with an excellent portrayal of Orlok/Dracula. This is one of the most disturbing portrayals of the count ever depicted. This is an original and creative take on the character. As great as Lugosi’s Dracula was, they got Rumania’s Christianity wrong. The villagers always crossed themselves in the Roman Catholic tradition.

This film depicts the villagers crossing themselves Orthodox style. There are Orthodox priests and nuns in this film, something I really appreciated. Previous to this, Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 Dracula film showed the Orthodox but that film was boring.

This film is great and a tribute to old fashioned horror. Scary, creepy, suspenseful, and great atmosphere. Fine acting and directing. The best Dracula film in many years.

.

Napoleon

Directed by

Ridley Scott

2023

The new film “Napolean” with Joachin Phoenix in the title role is great. Phoenix who earned a well deserved Oscar for his role as the Joker is terrific in his role. The film depicts the rise and subsequent fall of the tyrant and his political and military careers.

Much attention is given to his military campaigns and the senseless destruction and carnage. The closing credits inform us that twenty three million people died in his wars over a twenty two year period. My favorite parts are the scenes involving Russia and there is much about this film that is timely.

An excellent film highly recommended.

Exorcist Believer

Directed by

David Gordon Green

Warning Spoilers

On the bright side, “Exorcist Believer” is nowhere near as bad “Exorcist 2 the Heretic” which was the first sequel to “The Exorcist” released in 1977. On the negative side, this is a terrible movie. The original film based on the novel by William Peter Blatty and directed by William Friedkin remains a masterpiece.

The creators of this most recent sequel missed the whole point of the original film and the novel it was adapted from. The original film was the most sophisticated horror film ever made that understood the power of faith and the conflict of good and evil. The original film’s greatness emanates from the fact that the film dealing with the supernatural was dealt with as a real drama.

Friedkin himself said he did not consider “The Exorcist” a horror film. A horror film it most definitely was considering the subject matter based on a demonically possessed child. It was also a serious drama that dealt with themes that theologians must inevitably address. The question of human suffering both spiritually and physically, and the struggle to maintain one’s faith in an increasingly secular and dark world. The question of guilt and grief humanized the characters of the original film.

This film has none of that. The first half of the film is watchable and compelling. I was interested enough to wonder where the story would lead. In short, two girls get lost in the woods and disappear for three days.

One of these lost her mother at the time of her birth and wanted to communicate with her. The mother before her death was blessed by some sort of occult priestess. The references to the occult were a good touch but this never played out.

There is an implication in the first film that twelve year old Regan McNeill might have raised a demon after playing with Ouija board. This is never affirmed but viewers of the film can speculate. The implication in the new film suggests (or I misinterpreted) something similar was at work.

The first sign of trouble is the decision to have two girls possessed. As if the makers of the film thought they could make it twice as scary. The original film avoided such tactics.

The most interesting idea was to bring back Ellen Burstyn to resume her role as Chris McNeill. Unfortunately, they trashed the character. In the original, Burstyn was great as the distressed mother, a secular woman frustrated by doctors and psychiatrists to the point where she seeks out a priest to conduct an exorcism on her daughter.

In this film, Chris McNeill says she was not permitted to be present at Regan’s exorcism because of “the patriarchy”. This line more than any other mistakes indicate that Director Green and others had no business making a sequel to the original classic. This line demonstrated a failure to understand the theological and spiritual basis of the novel and original film.

Further on, attempts are made to turn the film into a slasher film which makes it even stupider. Fathers Karras and Merrin in the original gave their lives to save Regan spiritually and physically. Chris McNeill would never dismiss them as she does with that line about the “patriarchy”.

There is an exorcism of both girls at the same time and this is the worst exorcism ever to be shown in an exorcism movie. It is also a ridiculous interfaith exorcism as Chris McNeill suggests a form of people power and not faith in God can drive the demon out. What transpired with the parents of one girl is vile and totally pointless. The parents express willingness to let the other girl die!

Chris McNeill is mutilated in a totally stupid scene and the pathetic priest that shows up gets murdered. In the original film, a murder takes place that heightens the tension and the drama. It takes place offscreen as it is not necessary to show it as the progression of Regan’s possession is enough to show us the true horror and evil of the devil/demon.

The exorcism scene could have had everyone sing “we are the world” and it would not have been any more stupid. There is even a pagan priestess participating in the exorcism. This is a terrible film. The second worst film in the series.

Any director who has made a film with Seth Rogan should not be hired to make movies in “The Exorcist” series. This film fares badly not only in comparison to Friedkin’s masterpiece. There are other films such as “The Last Exorcism”, “The Exorcism of Emily Rose”, “Requiem”, and this years “The Pope’s Exorcist” which were much better than this mess.

Legendary director William Friedkin passed away earlier this month. Friedkin directed “The Exorcist”, the greatest horror film of all time. The Exorcist was also one of the greatest theological films of all time.

The novel the film was adapted from was written by William Peter Blatty , a devout Roman Catholic. Friedkin was Jewish but his faithful adaptation of the novel and his positive portrayal of good vs evil in a Christian context deserves praise. The story is based loosely on a true story.

In the film, a twelve year old girl is in great distress. The medical and psychiatric professions cannot help her. In the end, the problem is spiritual and a woman who is not religious in the slightest looks to priests to help her daughter.

The film is scary and disturbing but is also very Christian. Faith in God saves a child both spiritually and physically. Friedkin to the end had an interest in religious faith and did a documentary on the Vatican Exorcist who served as the inspiration for the recent film, “The Pope’s Exorcist”.

Friedkin was an outstanding director who made many films but for me he will be remembered for making a theological masterpiece. The Exorcist back in the 1980’s was crucial in triggering my interest in my faith.

William Friedkin rest in peace.

As an avid cinephile I watch the Academy Awards every year. This year was no exception. The Awards were actually entertaining unlike last year which was dominated by “woke” speeches. Unfortunately, the Awards this year were marred by actor Will Smith who walked onstage and slapped comedian Chris Rock.

Chris Rock made a joke about the wife of Smith who suffers from a disease that made her hair fall out. Comedians make joke and celebrities are frequent targets of comedians. Smith’s love for his wife and attempt to defend her is truly admirable. His use of violence in a setting where others were to be honored is deplorable.

Chris Rock deserves to be respected for maintaining his composure. Having been slapped publicly and on a worldwide television broadcast could not have been easy to endure. Chris Rock practiced the Christian virtue of turning the other cheek. He is to be admired for this as what had been an ugly scene might have turned far worse had he hit back.

Rock carried on and presented the award he was called out to present. Will Smith demonstrated remorse when he subsequently won the award for best actor. Whatever his intentions, Smith’s use of violence has been deservedly condemned.

There are lessons to be learned from this incident and examples to be emulated. Christians should pay attention.

Man of God

Directed by Yelena Popovich

2021

“Man of God” is an excellent film made by an Orthodox director (Serbian Yelena Popovic) with a cast including Greek and Russian actors along with Americans such as Mickey Rourke. The film is a biographical account of the Saints ecclesiastical life at the Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Church of Greece. The Saint was fiercely hounded and criticized by careerist bishops who were jealous of the sincerely pious Nektarios.

The film nicely contrasts the piety of Saint Nektarios with the political scheming that was taking place in ecclesiastical circles. Just look at the present problems at today’s Patriarchate of Alexandria and at the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow. Some things do not change.

Saint Nektarios was involved as a preacher, teacher, and founded the Monastery on the island of Aegina that bears his name. He was an Orthodox traditionalist refusing to disavow monasticism in the midst of secular criticisms. He was a man of peace who above all was willing to suffer in his devotion to Christ.

The film is a must see not only for Orthodox Christians, but western Christians and all people of faith generally. Highly recommended and inspiring.

Film Review

The Batman

Warner Brothers has launched a reboot of Batman. I am an admirer of Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy and so I was skeptical of this new Batman film going in to the theater. Especially so, after the terrible films that featured Ben Affleck as Batman. This film did not disappoint.

There is something Christian about superhero films. In the gospel, Christ teaches us to do good works in secret and store up treasures in heaven. We should not practice our piety in front of men so we may receive the greater reward later.

Superheroes to an extent practice humility and self sacrifice. They have secret identities and so their heroism is never really known to the general public. The greatest example of a superhero denying himself is Peter Parker who is Spiderman. For Parker, being a superhero is a drag that interferes with his life but he does the right thing at the expense of his own personal life.

Much the same can be said about Bruce Wayne but not to the same extent as Parker. Bruce Wayne is a millionaire living in the corrupt Gotham city that is dominated by the mob and other criminals. Wayne could live a life of luxury but chooses to become Batman and to risk his life in order to protect the public. Like Spiderman, he is misunderstood and slandered by the media.

“The Batman” recycles much of the same formula as previous versions such as Nolan’s films and Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman” film. At the same time it is its own film and while it resembles Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” it is not a rip off and it moves in a new direction. This time the villain is the Riddler who did not appear in any of Nolan’s films.

The new version of the Riddler is darker and more disturbing than Jim Carrey’s portrayal in the 1995 “Batman Forever” or Frank Gorshin’s Riddler from the 1960’s television series. As with the portrayal of the Joker by Heath Ledger and Joaquin Phoenix, the Riddler is a a psychopath and any of the comedic characteristics from performances by Gorshin and Carrey are nonexistent here.

There are some similarities with Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” and “The Joker” by Todd Phillips that are too much alike at times. But these similarities are limited and the film stands on its own overall. Robert Pattinson is a great Batman and the film works largely because of his performance.

The supporting cast is great. There is the usual action that occurs in Batman films but there is also a horror-gothic atmosphere throughout the early parts of the film which is unique. This is a successful reboot of the Batman franchise and a major improvement over the terrible Justice league films that featured Batman.

As with Christopher Nolan’s films and Phillip’s “The Joker” this is not a film for children. It is however Christian in the sense that the hero is willing to make personal sacrifices to help others. And like these other films, “The Batman” takes the subject of evil very seriously.

The city of Gotham is a metaphor for the fallen world we live in. In this film and in the Nolan films Batman can be seen as a metaphor for the Christian Church offering light and hope in times of darkness and evil. The themes of faith, sacrifice, and redemption are strong in superhero films and Batman is no exception.

The film is too dark and violent for younger children but for older people this film is a tremendous experience. The struggle of good and evil is depicted very well. Villains in these movies can be viewed as representing the devil. Evil incarnate and Batman is a sort of exorcist with a calling to crush the evil one.

A terrific film and highly recommended. It is great to be back at the movies.

After fourteen years, the Sopranos are back. The long awaited prequel, “The Many Saints of Newark” finally arrived in theaters. It is not a bad film overall, but it is disappointing owing to the fact that the film did not live up to the expectation that we would see how young Tony Soprano was corrupted. What was expected was to see Tony make his bones (commit his first murder) the way we see Christopher make his bones in the pilot episode of the Sopranos.

Mafia films are fascinating largely because of how they show the ease in which people can be corrupted. Goodfellas did a great job depicting the corruption of young Henry Hill. The first two Godfather films brilliantly showed how once honest men such as Michael Corleone and Vito Corleone can go down the dark path. The Sopranos series also touched on the corruption of Christopher.

The main problem with the film is this is about the Moltisanti family and less about the Sopranos. Dicki Molisanit is the star of the film and he is a great character. His life choices foreshadow the choices that his son Christopher takes in his life. Both father and son murder their girlfriends (for different reasons) and both are murdered leaving behind a wife and baby.

The movie has its moments. The acting is great. Michael Gandolfini is great in the role his father played. But there is no real transformation. There is is no equivalent of Micheal Corleone the nice guy going bad. That is what this film is missing.

Too much time on the race riots. It is one thing to show the background of racial tensions, another to focus too much on them. “A Bronx Tale”, the 1993 mob classic featured the problem of racism but wisely kept it to a minimum. The Sopranos series occasionally featured flashbacks of Johnny Boy Soprano. He was a fascinating character and regrettably was not used very much in the film.

In episode three of the third season, young Tony walks in as as his father cuts off the finger of Mr. Satriale (the guy whose butcher shop Johnny Boy took over and we learned during the series committed suicide). There should have been more of Johnny Boy and more of Tony proceeding with his criminal career.

Tony being inducted into the Mafia would have been a great ending. In the end we learn that Dickie Moltisanti was murdered on the orders of Uncle Junior. This brings into question the information given to us in season four episode one that Dickie was murdered by a dirty cop on the orders of another wiseguy. It also raises the possibility that if Tony was in fact murdered in the series finale (as many fans believe) then perhaps he was murdered on the orders of Uncle Junior as Dickie Moltisanti was.

It is true that Uncle Junior was sick and no longer in good standing with the family during the last two seasons of the shows run, but might it not have been possible he still had friends and could have given one last order? In the film, Uncle Junior ordered the murder of Dickie Moltisanti because he felt disrespected.

In his stay in a nursing home, Uncle Junior was beaten by a younger resident. Humiliation would have been a strong motivation for Uncle Junior to have Tony hit.

Not a bad film, but not a great film either.

The film entitled “Osama” by Director Siddiq Barmak was the first film to be made in Afghanistan after the overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001. The film very effectively depicts the horror of Taliban rule and its cruelty to women and girls. I watched this film on DVD when it was originally released and I thought it was worth revisiting considering everything that is happening now.

The story centers on a girl and her mother who is a doctor. The mother cannot work. Her husband and other male relatives are dead. She cannot leave the house without a male relative and must cover herself entirely in a burqa.

The child’s grandmother gets the decision to cut the girl’s hair and to disguise her as a boy so she can go work and earn money for the family to survive. Things go badly when a Taliban soldier spots the child and makes her go to a school for boys (as he thinks the child is a boy).

Things go bad for the child and her fate is tragic. Watching this film again with what is happening now leaves one entirely uncertain about what should be done about Afghanistan. After twenty years, the Taliban are back.