Desejo Selvagem

After reading the other tepid reviews and comments, I felt I had to come to bat for this movie.

Roeg's films tend to have little to do with one another, and expecting this one to be like one of his you liked is probably off the mark.

What this film is is a thoughtful and unabashed look at religious faith. The only other film like it-in terms of its religious message-would have to be Tolkin's `The Rapture.'

I am astonished that anyone could say the story is muddled or supernatural. It is a simple movie about Catholic faith, miracles, and redemption--though you would never guess it till the end. It is also the only movie I can think of whose resolution turns, literally, on a pun.

As a (happily) fallen Catholic myself, I know what the movie is about, and I find a sort of fondness in its ultimate innocence about the relation between God and man. But if you are not familiar with the kind of theology on which the film is based, then it will go right over you head.

As a film-as opposed to a story-`Cold Heaven' it is not ground-breaking. While `The Rapture' is heavy with pictorial significance and cinematic imagery, `Cold Heaven' downplays its own cinematic qualities. There are no striking shots, no edgy effects, no attempts to fit the content to the form. It is workmanlike shooting, but subdued. Nor does it have dialogue or acting to put it in a class of high drama. It is a simple story that unfolds simply. It may seem odd; but at the end the mystery is revealed. It looks ambiguous; but with a single line the ambiguity vanishes in a puff of Catholic dogma.

In this regard, `Cold Heaven' has at its heart exactly the same sort of thing that drives a movie like `The Sting,' or `The Sixth Sense,' or `Final Descent,' or Polanski's `A Pure Formality.' All of these are films with a trick up their sleeves. They may frustrate you along the way, but they have a point-an obvious one, indeed--but the fun is, at least in part, in having been taken in.

Still, even if it seems like little more than a shaggy dog story with a punch line, it is worth watching for way it directs-and misdirects-you. Try it-especially if you are, or have ever been, a Catholic.

Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON`T LOOK NOW didn`t he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight`s screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever .

You see it`s impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON`T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn`t occur but about one third of the way through the running time there`s a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it`s not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie

People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it`s impossible not to notice them . If I didn`t no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it`s got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn`t help the movie at all . One can`t help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen

Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie

Its cinematic treatment of the dead coming to life is the most interesting take I've seen on the genre. He is like coming apart at the seams. Its job is to cast a spell around the rest of the movie. This is the stuff of high theater. It is both literal and symbolic at once, a very Japanese treatment. Every time I remembered it from my first viewing it was just that guy's portrayal of the undead.

Somebody said it's like a soap opera performance, but this is exactly it. He is performing a soap opera character except vomiting blood, hurling, and having Frankenstein meltdowns. Instead of using soap as a pejorative, we can say it is a high art treatment of a soap. But the average viewer might not realize it, somehow this might play straight to them.

There is something about the contrast of the cable TV movie, with a Nic Roeg film, that is both jarring and weird, but never operating outside the viewer and the screen.

The climax of the movie is a cross being burned into the hill by God, then she runs in his arms, the saxophone plays. The film is about her thoughts of infidelity haunting her, and her returning to live in service to God.

I was not sure if she would run into the lovers arm because that would be a valid reading of the film as well. To forget her husband, he was dead all along, to move on. It would be a tale of sexual healing and grief. But Roeg had made that film several times by that point. Instead, to elevate such a small human dilemma to the grandest stage is the power of melodrama, the power of art.

Some of the early Peter Weir films dealt with white guilt and aboriginal spirituality with some of these tones. Another review said with auteurs we don't watch their filmography expecting them to top themselves, we go for the small pleasure of how they have twisted the dial slightly differently. All that is interesting in his films are here, although it does a disservice to put them into words. So a Christian work is unexpected, but using his avant-garde eye becomes a spontaneous combustion; it is impossible to go wrong dealing with the very symbols of reality, life, death, love, morality.

The lightning bolt awakening becomes something in films; that enlightenment isn't just about that, but about the inverse, a complete intolerance toward immorality. This is why her awakening is triumphant. It brought him back, finally, for real. Roeg was the rarest thing, a western auteur, uncompromising and without commercial interests. But this, his most obscure work is somehow his most directly meaningful, but at the same time you sense that having such direct answers is kind of a problem for him.

I wanted to like this movie, but couldn't follow it. It flashes back and forth and provides real time dialogue intermixed with whispers, which are the main characters thoughts. She thinks she is going crazy, and after listening to all the whispering, you will think you are, too. The husband, a role phoned-in by Mark Harmon, is either dead or alive or brought back to life, or never really got hurt. I can't figure it out. Seeing Talia Shire play an overzealous nun was just bad casting. And seeing the monsignor's face transform several times in a few seconds just made me queasy. I think it was supposed to be a metaphor for her new faith being tested. The premise of the story is impressive, too bad it didn't get the screenplay it deserved.

Heady mix of erotic thriller, paranormal mystery and religious mysticism from the always interesting director Nicolas Roeg; it's entrancing (especially in the first half) if slow (especially in the second), and when the payoff (particularly the meaning of the "sanctuary") comes, you may feel that it was not worthy of all that build-up. Theresa Russell looks fantastic (she has filled out in all the right places) and gives another great performance; in a very small part, Julie Carmen explodes with a fiery sensuality that rivals, if not surpasses, that of a young Penelope Cruz. Will Patton is miscast as a priest; the friendlier he tries to be, the creepier he gets. **1/2 out of 4.