31 Days Of Horror: Day #24 - ROSEMARY'S BABY

"We're your friends, Rosemary!" - Mrs. Gilmore

Rosemary's Baby, (1968), Directed By Roman Polanski
Grade: A+

*This review contains minor spoilers*

Ah yes, the infamous film that is Rosemary's Baby.  While many may argue that the film has become a dated joke of what it once was, this blogger sees nothing in it but pure fright and downright terror-stricken symbolism.  The film bases its scares on the unseen, and in recent years audiences have become impatient with psychological terror of the mind and instead want immediate gratification with their horror movies.

Rosemary's Baby is all about the buildup, the countdown to the birth of the child.  And while this seems like a tedious set-up for a horror movie, it isn't.  (And if you have a short attention span, then just go watch Transformers 4: Revenge Of The Fallen Career Of Michael Bay Who Now Lives On The Dark Side Of The Moon.)

Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse move into a high rise apartment in New York, and become acquainted with the strange and mysterious neighbors that live there.  At first, they appear harmless, but....and this is where the terror starts to build....we soon realize that there is something quite "off" about these neighbors.

Then Rosemary (who is played to perfection by Mia Farrow) learns that she is pregnant, and what follows is a rollercoaster of psychological horror that only the director Roman Polanski could unfold upon the audience with such sincere yet maniacal prowess.

The superb Ruth Gordon (in an Oscar-winning performance) plays one of the seemingly normal neighbors.  At first, she appears to be like that sweet old lady neighbor who brings you cookies and cakes to welcome you to the complex, but then her appearances start to become more and more of an annoyance, until soon it becomes clear that she (and her friends) are definitely not what they seem.

But the key to whole film is Farrow.  There would be no movie without her.  And, in one of the most terrifying moments of the film, when she informs her husband, Guy (John Cassavetes) that "She feels the baby moving inside her" and starts crying tears of joy, brings forth a sense of such sheer creepiness that this blogger had to stop the movie for a second a take a breath before continuing.

When the outcome is finally revealed, Polanski does an interesting thing, which is to not show the baby after its birth.  To have done so would have lowered the psychological suspense and, in a way, cheated the audience.  While there may be lots of viewers who disagree, the film is really not about WHAT the baby is or what it looks like, but the effect it has on these characters.  Their reactions are far more stronger and eerie than showing a result of what the baby is or the ugliness of evil that it contains.  And in the end, Mia Farrow's final expression of when she realizes that above all, she is the baby's mother, brings the film to such a satisfying conclusion that you realize it could not have ended any other way.

Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite horror movies, because it takes its time in its buildup.  We feel Polanski stretching our emotions to such strong limits, we are ready to snap at any second.  Of course, when showing the movie to a mainstream audience today, I seriously doubt its effect would be as powerful as it was 43 years ago.  But again, we've changed as a society, and this blogger seriously hopes that Hollywood will not turns its eye towards this Polanski masterpiece and do their evil bidding of a remake.

Yeah, right.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #22 - THE EXORCIST III: LEGION

"I have dreams... of a rose, and then of falling down a long flight of steps." - Patient X 

The Exorcist III: Legion, (1990), Directed by William Peter Blatty

Grade: A

Once again, General George S. Patton enters the realm of the supernatural and fights off demons.  Suffice to say, this blogger thinks this film is superior to The Exorcist.  Yes, that's a horror classic, but Exorcist III delves deeper into the subconscious, and provides numerous scares that are ultimately more terrifying.

First, we must forget about the laughfest that was Exorcist II.  That film was pure camp and actually if taken as a comedic exercise isn't that hard to sit through.  Exorcist III picks up fifteen years after the original Exorcist, with Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) investigating the murders of a serial killer that seem to have a dark, religious motive.

The events that take place soon bring forth demonic forces that were present in the original film, as the serial killer claims to be by the original demon that took over Regan MacNeil fifteen years earlier, exacting revenge by possessing patients in a psychiatric ward and having them commit murders. (Got all that?)

What follows is an exercise in cinematic scares, including a scene in the hospital which is so cleverly constructed and set up, and it builds and builds until.....well, watch the movie.

Exorcist III was written and directed by William Peter Blatty, the writer of the original novel and film, and is one of the reasons why the movie works so well.  Blatty's original source material is what allows Exorcist III to unfold so cleverly.  Blatty knows these characters better than anybody, so his vision makes for a satisfying horror film that wouldn't have worked with another director.  George C. Scott plays his part well, although some may argue echoes of Jack Nicholson's performance in The Shining, which was accused of being over-the-top.  No matter, Scott gives a well-rounded performance that works.  Scenes are eerily set up where we as the audience can feel the terror and experience the dread that is oozing out through each scene.

Of course, when released in 1990, the film was a critical flop and was quickly disregarded.  Also, certain scenes were dropped and the studio, after viewing Blatty's first cut, wanted a scene added involving an actual exorcism so as to market the film properly. (Originally, there was NOT one present in the first cut.)

This is a shame, because over time Exorcist III has become a cult classic of sorts, and has stayed within the horror oeuvre as a sort of a curiosity piece.  It's a movie that contains everything needed in a horror film, which allows for its audience to experience terror first-hand.  Sadly, Blatty's original version is said be lost, so we may never actually see what could have been.

But no matter, what remains is an excellent horror film and you get to see Patton face off against the voice of Chucky, so that's a winner in my book.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #21 - THE OMEN (1976)/(2006)

"Have no fear, little one...I am here to protect thee." - Mrs. Baylock

The Omen, (1976)/(2006), Directed by Richard Donner/John Moore
Both Films - Grade: A

There's always been a classy filmmaking aspect about The Omen that has made it one of my favorite horror films.  Perhaps it's the plotline about the existence of evil and how much power it has over the world if it is not fought against, or the presentation of Satan incarnate as a young child.

Whatever it is, the presentation given on film of The Omen makes for great horror cinema.  The set design, the cinematography, the eerie Oscar-winning music by Jerry Goldsmith, and all the performances contribute.  And strangely enough, as hard as it is for the blogger to admit, the 2006 remake of The Omen is just as well done as the original.

Robert Thorn and Katherine Thorn are the proud parents of a young baby boy.  The problem is, this boy is the son of Satan and has plans to take over the human race and unleash a never-ending reign of terror across the world.  With Robert Thorn as a U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, this adds an element of spookiness among the political world and the elements that surround it.

Both films use to an extent identical approaches.  Scenes are basically the same and the plot is the same.  However, while the original was a masterpiece, the 2006 version also establishes itself as the same, but without ruining any of the power the original had.  

As I've said, I hate it when remakes are just remakes for the sake of making a quick buck and trying to be "hip", and with the box-office failure of the 2006 Omen, I guess this is one instance where I'm glad it failed.  With a remake, all producers want to do is "make it cool" for the young crowd and draw in all the audiences they can.  While this is all well and good I guess for Hollywood, it diminishes from the quality, and usually we end up getting something that will easily be discarded as nothing.  (Psycho remake anyone?)

With The Omen, something different happened.  The remake was a flop, nobody saw it, and many critics continually bashed it.  And basically, if this had been the first time the film had been released and it wasn't remake, it probably would have been hailed as a great horror flick with tons of originality.

To be sure, that's the way I felt about the remake.  It's a great film.  Every little detail is handled carefully.  There are even some parts that are added that do not deter or ruin anything about the film, such as the still from the following scene:

Perhaps the case being that the camera does not linger on this image for very long, and it could very well be subliminal.  That's what makes the scene work.  It creeps into your mind and stays with you, all the while in front of you the movie continues to unfold on the screen.  It's little touches like this that make the remake just as memorable as the original.

While many may feel that screen legend Gregory Peck could not be replaced as Robert Thorn, Liev Schreiber does a commendable job and even evokes (in an eerie way), the persona of Peck.  Julia Stiles was criticized by many viewers as being too young for the part of Katherine.  I disagree.  While it would have been interesting to see what an actress such as say, Naomi Watts could have done with the role (and I wouldn't complain about that, and neither would Schreiber), Stiles' performance works very well, and exhibits all the inhibitions of a mother and a terrified woman on the brink of madness.

Then of course, there is Damien himself, played by two very different child actors (Harvey Stephens and Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick), but both performances are of equal, where both actors play Damien with a subtle wit and an unusual sense of silent malice.

The Omen films are classics.  I even liked the two sequels to the original.  And whereas I don't think we'll be getting a sequel to the remake any time soon, it's refreshing to know that there are some parts of the industry that want to retain filmmaking as a true art form and not just an excuse for a quick cash grab.  More recently, another remake that was every bit as good as the original was Let Me In, which you can read my review for here.

In the meantime, sit back and enjoy one of the greatest horror films ever made.  It's something scary that will give any episode of Toddlers And Tiaras a run for its money.

1976 Trailer:



2006 Teaser Trailer (which is actually Davey-Fitzpatrick's screen test):