nefastus

I rented this movie yesterday and really didn't expect much to be honest. Many current horror titles are very uninspired and frankly rely too much on gore and not enough on story or atmosphere. I was surprised though, it was an engaging story, taking inspiration for Poe perhaps, Agento and others which isn't a bad thing, and actually keeping a sense of its own identity and style. I love horror movies, especially ones that rely more on imagination and atmosphere, this one does to an extent but then focuses on the human element and becomes more of a thriller, in this I felt a little cheated.

The building which is the object of the movie is simply a nice piece of Gothic, deco art. Sinister and yet elegant in its simplicity, huge and monstrous in its presence. The premise works in the beginning and the actors do not disappoint. It is suggestion that works here as well as a psychological drama that is as twisted as an abnormal Mother and son relationship and dark secrets of the past mingled with arcane knowledge of the architecture of forbidden temples. Sadly though, I wished for more emphasis on the later aspect, it held my interest and fascination, but it veered into a film about a demented teenage crush. If more time had been spent on the architect, his history and theories as well as the previous murders then the chill factor would have been amped up.

The building should have been the real star here and its creator and to a large extent it is, yet it slowly is pushed into the background and dwarfed by a teenager's obsession and some of the dwellings rather seemed to be almost inconsistent in their art direction. The inhabited dwellings almost seemed cheap, bland compared to the overall presence of the building. It caused a sense of confusion, perhaps intentional.

Enjoyable yet flawed and could have been developed into a much richer film. It is still a fun view. I hope the director continues with the genre, though this film has its flaws, the director has potential.

One thing that I have admired Blatty for in both Exorcist III and The Ninth Configuration, is his ability to bring a still, eerie atmosphere into vignettes that disturb some inner part of the viewer's psyche. His use of camera direction as well as snippets that he interjects here and there create a sense of disturbance that not all is as it seems. That takes talent. I wish he would have or would do more.

The Ninth Configuration has to be Stacy Keech's finest role. His portrayal of the psychiatrist emphasizing with his patients pain while under the surface something brews within him that lets the viewer know that there is something not right.

The Ninth Configuration, like Exorcist III has another Blatty trademark and that is snappy, witty dialog. Though you can tell this is Blatty's first movie and he is testing his muscles, he soon begins to build a foundation that leads us to a climax that is one of the best in movie history. I am still surprised at the amount of people who know nothing about this gem.

It does have flaws. Many in fact. But it is the attempt of a first time director. Production qualities seem tight on this film, but with superb editing, Blatty plays the magician and makes it seem a trifle.

The only other flaw, the opening score or song seemed out of place. But frankly these things are dwarfed by intense and humorous dialog and characterization. I found it also nice to see Neville Brand again as Roper as well as Jason Miller trying to direct Hamlet with dogs.

But it is Keech here, whom with stillness with a glimmer of psychotic turmoil brewing underneath that really captures our attention. "Does evil come out of madness or does madness come out of evil." The witty dialog, one scene in particular dealing a patient punishing atoms with a hammer because they will not let him pass through the wall is a freaking brilliant laugh out laugh moment but Blatty doesn't let you stay in the light zone of humor for long, it is a roller coasting from humor to human darkness and faith.

I highly recommend it.

Amid all the critical acclaim and unabashed praise that many gave this movie I had hopes. I love "No Country for Old Men" and "Miller's Crossing" to me are master works. "Fargo" retains its charm even when covered with blood or thrust into a wood chipper...but sadly "Burn" fails.

Why? The cast is superb, but they seem to be enjoying playing mockeries of their own screen persona than actually playing a character. There are exceptions to this such as J.K. Simmons, Swanson and Malkovich, but Pitt and Clooney seem more content on doing a parody of themselves than actually turning in a character performance. It sadly reeked of gimmick to me.

I wanted to emphasize with someone, but none of them had any redeeming values which is opposite most of the Cohen brothers' previous works. There is only one character that has any redeeming virtue about him and that was Richard Jenkins as the love lorn gym manager. Of course his demise is brutal, I suppose this is part of the Cohen joke. Now don't get me wrong, I am used to watching characters that you can emphasize with get killed in Cohen movies and still walk away saying it was a good story.

This was not. It was a very narcissistic movie. Which I suppose is the point that the Cohens were trying to make, narcissism pays off after all the self obsessed person is the one that wins in the end of this mess.

The humor is not well played and somehow the comedic timing was off in several scenes. Part was due to the fact that some of the actors seemed not even to take the movie itself seriously enough to make it funny, but like the Ocean 11 movies, seemed to be more interested in celebrity bonding. I just couldn't buy into it. A story about 2 dimensional characters that are vain and self seeking doesn't make a story. It doesn't even make a farce when the characters cannot draw you in.

It was bleh.

Sorry, can't recommend it, but I have hopes for future Cohen movies.