The Punisher

This week we got to watch the movie The Punisher. Which is a movie based on a comic about a man who has everything taken from him and turns into a vigilante/killer. Or as I like to call this movie, Thomas Jane put your damn shirt on! But seriously, will someone please buy the poor man a shirt? He clearly needs one as he spends a good portion of this film lacking one.

The official trailer. 

Okay, so the first thing I want to talk about this movie is the purported psycho in this film. Which I am guessing is supposed to be Howard Saint. Which is problematic for me because while he is a total ass, and jealous mess of person he's not truly a psychopath. . . he's not even a psychotic (and yes there is a difference). Psychotic: A mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality (example: The Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland) . Psychopath: (1) a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior or (2) an unstable and aggressive person (Cromer). The later also involves emotional, behavioral, mood, and speech issues. In my opinion, he doesn't quite fit that. You can't really place him under the psycho's banner. So we are left with Castle aka the Punisher. He doesn't really fit that either. I mean if we say that Castle is a psycho then so too are all superheroes. That would make even Superman a psycho because goodie-two-shoes or not he engages in violence. It would also make anyone who participates in violent sports, or anyone whose ever had a fight of any kind would then be considered a psycho. What we see in this film is situational and should be viewed as such. It's not an indicator of being a psycho. So I'm left unsure why this film was included in the Psychos class. 

Okay, psychology background rant over. The second thing I wanted to talk about in this film is the actors in it. One I rather enjoy and one that I have a hard time buying as. . .well, there's no easy way to say it so I'll just say it. . . I have a hard time buying the other as a human being. While I genuinely enjoy Thomas Jane I have to say I prefer his other work over this. Yes, I know I said he needs to keep his shirt on. And I still stand with that statement. I like him as an actor, but you know. . . shirts they exist for a reason. Learn it. Live it. Love it. So I like Thomas Jane, but I'm just meh, about this film. I much prefer him in movies like The Mist, Dream Catcher, or The Sweetest Thing. Then there is John Travolta. . . yeah. . . Not a fan. I love movies, even bad movies. I own a bunch of them. Guess how many have John Travolta in them. Zero. Because he's just not good. I don't buy him in this or any other movie I have seen him in. They could have done better casting for a super villain. 

Honestly, the only good part of this movie for me is when the body count began to rise. And yes I know I'm bloodthirsty one. But I can't help it. I disliked the film so when all the crap characters and actors I was not fond of got wiped from the screen it was a blessing. I didn't hate the movie. I mean it did have Thomas Jane in it and he did what he could, it just wasn't enough to save this film for me. I've seen it maybe eleven times now and it's still just meh. If I never saw it again I would not be heartbroken about it. 

Works Cited

Comer, Ronald J. Abnormal Psychology. New York City: Worth Publishing, 2007. Text Book.

The Punisher. Dir. Jonathan Hensleigh. Perf. Thomas Jane. 2004. DVD.

Ghostbusters

The last piece we were asked to look at for my RIG Horror class is Ghostbusters. I am no stranger to this film. I saw it first when I was a little kid. In fact I grew up watching the Ghostbusters TV cartoon every Saturday morning. And yes that was a thing, and yes I loved it even though they turned Slimer into a weird ghostly side kick instead of a poltergeist. I was a kid. that's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.

Like with the last reading I'm not quite sure that I would consider this horror. For me it's too silly and more of a comedy than a horror. I saw it on the list and I was like "What..." (Hear this in minion voice). I guess it could fall under haunting, for obvious reasons. Sure there are ghosts, and such but there are no real horror elements. For me placing this film in with horror is like saying Shaun of the Dead in horror. Both are more comedy than horror in my opinion.

I do genuinely enjoy that in the film they employed science to find, trap, and contain ghosts. I think it's really the only movie with haunting of any kind that attempts to contain the entities. The others all attempt to drive them off, damn them to hell, or is some form cast them out. Not Ghostbusters. They think hmm, lets catch all these ghosts and keep them in a tank in the office like ectoplasm filled goldfish or something. Now tell me that's not a comedy. In case you needed further proof that this film is a comedy the final big bad is a giant marshmallow man. That's a right  a giant marshmallow. How on earth is a giant marshmallow scary.

To prove marshmallows are not scary I give you Marshmallow Murder. For no other reason than Marshmallows are funny and not scary. 

Steve!!! See not scary. Not even a little bit.

So I love the movie. I will always love the movie. It's funny and reminds me of my childhood in so many ways. As a closer for the semester I think it fits me perfectly though. I enjoy comedic ghosts, and I love Bill Murray. But at the end of the class I am and always will feel the same about ghosts, and ghost stories. "I ain't afraid of no ghost," (Reitman).

Works Cited

Ghostbusters. Dir. Ivan Reitman. Perf. Dan Aykroyd, & Bill Murray. 1984. DVD.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

This week in class we got to read The Exorcism of Emily Rose. A paranormal courtroom drama based on supposedly true events in the life of a young woman named Emily Rose. This is not my first time watching this movie, in fact I didn't have to buy a copy because I already had one. I'm a fan of one of the main actresses so of course it was already in my collection. I've seen it a couple of times but I re-watched it so that I would have specific things to talk about for this post. 

What I Liked:

Jennifer Carpenter:

Okay, so I am a huge Jennifer Carpenter fan from her days on Dexter as Dexter's foul mouthed sister Debra Morgan. I really just loved that character. Rarely do women get to be the foul mouth, and not only was Debra a foul mouth she had some of the best one liners and creative cursing I have every heard and enjoyed. She made me laugh. So yeah I watched this movie the first time because I liked Jennifer and she didn't disappoint me. She was excellent in this film in her portrayal of a woman who is definitely afflicted with something (more on that later). She's mad brilliant and I love her in this film...but I'm not going to lie I kind of missed the foul mouth. And I will always love her as Debra best. If you want to see what I am talking about and you haven't seen Dexter watch this clip here (but free warning it's fairly profane), and watch Dexter on Netflix. It's awesome and Jennifer is awesome in it.

A couple Debra non profane moments for your enjoyment. 

The Demon Eyes/Great Visual Effects:

I also really enjoyed the special effects in this film. From the demon eyes that seemed to leak black goo to the awesome make up they did on Jennifer to show her deteriorating state. I felt that it was really well done and didn't seem to over the top compared to what we've seen in movies like The Exorcist films were. They seemed plausible and realistic...well except the demon eyes. Those where just awesome.

The Scientific Approach to Possession:

Not that anyone is surprised at this point but I loved the scientific approach to this movie. My little scientific heart skipped a beat when I first watched it. I'm a big fan of trying to disprove this sort of thing. That said there are some glaring problems with this movies science. First of all the one doctor claims he would treat her with ECT more commonly known as electroshock therapy. Here's the problem with that: ECT is used only by consent and has not been used on psychosis since the 70's. It's actually used only for major depressive disorder now and never with out full consent. If they were going to use that they  should have set this back when that ECT was still used for that. Just the same I liked the effort but they should have done their research before they used that.

Accurate Depiction of SIB, Rigidity, and Destruction of Property

I really enjoyed the accurate depiction of the ailments that Emily Rose suffered. The postures and behaviors of actress Jennifer Carpenter where spot of for these sorts of manifestations of behavior. First of all I love the pure physicality of the actress. Second I work with kids who exhibit several of these behaviors and she freaking nailed it. The frozen rigid poses (I actually see this regularly), the SIB, the destruction of property, they nailed those to. To someone who doesn't work with people who do these sorts of things regularly then I'm sure it could be seen as demonic, for me I saw it as accurate portrayal of mental illness. Around 51 minutes into the film Emily Rose is frozen on the floor in a perfect representation of a behavior I have seen represented in real life as recently as this week. It was so accurate I wanted to clap. Sure it's a weird thing to enjoy but when there are so many bad representations of these behaviors out there, when you see a good one you applaud the pains they went to make it perfect.

The blackout contacts make this seem way scarier than it actually is in real life. But still awesome. 

Ending Quote:

"Once You've looked into the darkness, I believe you carry it with you the rest of your life" (Derrickson). Need I say more? That's a brilliant line and I love it. They did an excellent job with dialogue in this film in not only rang true but had a lot of profound moments. I'm not spiritual, nor religious but I really appreciated the way the words where crafted in this film. They were well thought out and meaningful. The above quote just happens to stand out to me as possibly the best one.

What I Didn't Like:

Based On A True Story:

Can we not? The film starts with "This film is based on a true story," (Derrickson) and every time I see those words I swear my ass twitches. All it took was a simple google search to find out that one Emily Rose doesn't exist, Father Moore doesn't exist, the names are pure fiction. The movie is influenced by supposed real events that occurred to Anneliese Michel in 1976, the priest is an amalgamation of a Reverend and a Priest that tried to exorcised her. Also it's worth noting that Anneliese didn't just have 1 exorcism, she had 67, she chose to stop eating (trying to fast the demons out), she wasn't forced to do so, and  it is pretty widely excepted that her whole possession was a fraud, that was heavily influenced by the movie The Exorcist that came out two years before. I also find it destroys credibility for this story that Anneliese's parents had her body exhumed and reburied in a tin lined oak casket (to make sure the demon stayed inside her dead body)...So clearly being a crazy pants runs in the family. If they were going to change so much then they should have said inspired by not based on true events. Then it would have made a little less of a Crabby Patty. 

So Not A Horror Movie:

Yeah so am I the only one who noticed this is not a horror movie. It's a paranormal courtroom drama at best. Not a horror movie. I am really annoyed with how Hollywood will slap horror on so many movies that just aren't horror (*coughs* The Village *coughs*). This is another example of Hollywood pandering to an audience that they think will make them the most money but not living up to the genre convention in a pretty big way. The whole bill it as this, when it's really that is obnoxious and I wish they would stop doing that. If you are a hard core horror fan (and I am) and you see this is the horror section, you will most likely be upset when it doesn't deliver on it's promises. Not cool Hollywood, stop doing this.

Final Thoughts:

Admittedly this film has it's flaws, but over all it's a really good film and I genuinely enjoys it. That said if it weren't for Jennifer Carpenter's performance I may not have received it so well. A lot of the flaws I was able to overlook because of her amazing physical performance.

Works Cited

The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Dir. Scott Derrickson. Perf. Laura Linney & Jennifer Carpenter. 2005. DVD.