|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BY now we are more or less resigned to Hollywood’s remakes and sequels gimmick even though most of them do not work. But why touch classics like Psycho and The Exorcist? It is almost a sacrilege to do so. Psycho was made in daylight, tragically. And Exorcist: The Beginning is no better. And to think of it the 1973 horror classic already has two sequels. Why then this prequel? That the original was director Renee Harlin’s favourite film is no reason. In fact, the action-director of Cliffhanger and Die Hard 2 struggles in Exorcist: The Beginning and loses his way long before the horror-for-horror’s sake climax. So here we go to the origin of the exorcist Fr Merrin, the part played by Max Von Sydow. In his place we have another Swede Stellan Skarsgard, who is even a near look-alike. The director resorts to that familiar holocaust subject and provides him with an excuse to leave the Church. Then he sends him to Kenya to find out the evil past and the origin of that archaeological find we see in the original film. Enter the world of spirits with hyenas attacking children and a lady doctor Sarah Novak (Izabella Scorupco) doing her best to mend them. An African boy Joseph (Remy Sweney) holds the key as he is the victim of these ghoulish attacks. There are a good deal of grey areas and as many red herrings. What is Merrin’s role in all this? No longer Father, he is searching for that "archaeological find" as well as his faith. So he has to go through a whole sequence of weird happenings. Accompanying him is Fr Francis (James D’Arcy), a handsome young priest and an enthusiast about the occult. With all these ingredients it isn’t difficult to weave out a credible tale. But the screenplay by Alexei Hawley is weak and Fr Merrin’s original entry in the first film was good enough. That the hero Stellan Skarsgard has to run from pillar to post doesn’t make it any better. Nor does the fact that Izabella Scorupco is also Swedish or that director Harlin in Finnish. A Scandinavian cast is no guarantee for the success of the film and Harlin has to make the best of his limited resources. The action aspect is fair but not the horror. And some of the shockers are more funny (albeit, unconsciously) than scary. Why these attacks keep happening is inexplicable (may be they’ll make another film to explain them). Which means that after the initial half hour the viewer is destined to suffer in silence. How the different characters change their moods and manner of functioning only adds to the mess. If one has to think of the acting, Stellan Skarsgard is at best enthusiastic and Izabella Scorupco is given enough exposure in Hollywood or world cinema. That apart, Exorcist: The Beginning is a sad, sad reminder of the original classic. Action is the real hero
Take Tom Cruise, give him a different persona, steel grey hair and a salt-and-pepper stubbled face and in a snazy suit, but basically a villain, and let him loose among the pigeons. Let him also run into Jamie Foxx, as a mundane cabby in Los Angeles. How their two lives get inextricably linked is what Collateral is all about. That their two characters undergo a change is academic but as far as the viewer is concerned it is staccato action for 120 minutes. When Vincent (Tom Cruise), a ruthless, cold-blooded contract killer gets into Mr Anybody Max’s (Jamie Foxx) cab, the viewer is in for a rollercoaster ride through that violence-infested city (rivalling New York for notoriety). Oh yes, the pigeons Vincent is after, are the five victims, or key witnesses in a drug racket. For variety, one of them is a jazz aficionado, so there’s soothing music as a backdrop and talk of Charlie Mingus and Miles Davies. But the killer’s motives are not immediately revealed. So it is a sort of shock therapy for poor Max, who becomes a collateral, but in a strange way it gets him our of his day-dreaming stupor and in touch with the real world. That Max’s last fare was US Attorney Annie Farrell (Jada Pinkett Smith) seems accidental but she, too, has a part to play in this enthralling drama. The screenplay by Stuart Beattie is taut and plunges into the action almost immediately. Director Michael Mann makes Vincent the focal point of the film. In the process of eliminating his victims, the viewer enters the psyche of the two key characters, Max and Vincent. For Vincent it is a job, pure and simple. For Max it is a whole new experience. But working together gives rise to a certain camaraderie. Vincent even visits Max’s ailing mother with flowers. Is he trying to win over the cabby? And how does this "two to tango" duet end? Actually Collateral virtually shuns the three-act format of a beginning, middle and end and seems to get straight into the third act. And what a long act it is. One gets almost out of breath, but there’s a pause before the denouement and director Mann is superb with the action scenes and is abetted by cameramen Dion Beebe and Paul Cameron. You have fast cars, the metro and up and down buildings, its shades of the running hero of the 1970s, Dustin Hoffman and Co. In fact, one shot is quite reminiscent of Midnight Cowboy, but saying more would reveal too much. Tom Cruise does well as a villain but it is Jamie Foxx who is called upon to display even greater histrionic skills and Jada Pinkett Smith is quite effective in a cameo but it is action that is the hero and director Michael Mann does a superb job. Collateral
is full of action and suspense. A must-see, undoubtedly. The film, to
have been released in 2001, was held back after 9/11. |
