O 18º Anjo

I'm quite surprised by the low ratings users have given this movie. I think of all the direct to video genre films of late The Eighteenth Angel is the pick of the crop. Great acting, an original plot, and great surprisingly good visual effects combine for a great intriguing film.

"The House of Yes", "Family Rescue", "She's All That": all decent movies starring Rachael Leigh Cook. That's why Rachael was the only reason I wanted to see "The Eighteenth Angel" (well, that and the fact it was shown just after The X-Files). The short version: not even Rachael (as Lucy) can save this disaster.

Here's the longer version: Some of the acting is so bad it's more frightening than the horror plot (a Satanic church wants the Antichrist back and all they need is a demon clock saying when they should sacrifice 18 angelic children). The worst performance is given by Maximilian Schell: instead of acting like a satanic priest he acts like he's the evil penguin in a children's story. When he recites the satanic verses, you think he's reading the recipe for pork chops. The more the story evolves the more ludicrous it gets. If you know the horror cliches, all you have to do is make a list and wait for it to come. Oh look, spikes: somebody's bound to get killed by them. (check) Oh look, nice horses: they are probably going to kill someone. (check) Let's wait for the cameo of a cemetary. (check) Etc etc. (check) Watch out for painful mistakes: father Simeon is praying to the Devil in a pentagram (check), but apparently the makers of this movie didn't know what a pentagram is. It certainly isn't what they used a movie. (If you don't know what a pentagram looks like: watch Jacob the Liar: in that movie they needed a Jewish star, but they used a pentagram.) Add the final ingredient: referring to and stealing from other movies. Maybe they can get away with referring to Brian de Palma's Obsession (the church scene), but it's hard not to spot they borrowed some ideas from The Exorcist. Once again: bad copying only makes a bad movie worse.

So it's best to skip this movie? Yes, unless you like watching Rachael Leigh Cook. In this movie she is a teenage model, so there's lots of posing and looking nice. But she was much better in the movie list I started this review with, so that's not really an argument. Also, skipping The Eighteenth Angel means you don't have to see the ending of a movie which gets worse every scene. You'll clap your hand when the titles get there: not because the movie was good, but because it's finally over.

I re-watched THE EIGHTEENTH ANGEL some time ago because I was given an ex-rental copy of it. I remember watching it some years ago and thinking that it wasn't too bad, though I couldn't remember why. After revisiting it, I still think it's not too bad. And I still can't really figure out why. Let's see... The story was ambitious. The production values were okay. The film had a decent look and some visceral effects in the make-up department. The acting was good and so was the cinematography. That monastery up the hill looked creepy, just like it should in a horror movie... Ergo, this film ain't too bad.

It's along the lines of films like THE OMEN (1976) and BLESS THE CHILD (2000), but it's more on par with the latter than the first. Given the fact it has less star-power and was filmed on a smaller budget, I do consider THE EIGHTEENTH ANGEL and admirable effort. The only thing that really bothered me, were some plot holes I just couldn't wrap my head around. I won't go into it now and I'll steer away from writing a synopsis too. What matters is that I found it to be an okay movie and I've seen worse. Much worse.

Far from a great movie, but at least it's better than "The Ninth Gate" and "End of Days" (the two movies it reminded me most of). Rachel Leigh Cook is stunningly beautiful, and gives a performance that makes some poor writing almost work. Christopher McDonald is surprisingly good even though (perhaps because) he is not playing the comedic jerk character he's played in almost everything else he's been in. Maximillian Schell should have just stayed home; he doesn't bring anything new or even interesting to the film. All in all, it's worth renting (or buying for three dollars, as I was lucky enough to do), even though the ending is one of the most cliched, predictable bits of cinema I've seen in a long time. The menacing glare straight into the camera at the last shot just doesn't seem as clever as it used to be. For that matter, I'm not convinced it ever was clever.

The countdown is on...the devil is coming, the devil is coming. And, it wants some beauty, so let's kidnap some beautiful girls. From the phony somber stridency of the narrator's opening monologue, to the stupid clock that gives the countdown, this movie has the most implausible of themes. On first viewing, the movie was rated a 5, for some interesting camera work, and movie tone. But several months and several 100 movies later, a second viewing(why I wasted my time I don't know) warrants a lower rating. New rating: 4 As an aside, in one scene, the husband asks about his wife's work: It's "Etruscans" she says. "Ah, snails," he says. "No that's crustaceans," she says. "No sorry, that's mollusca," I say.