vampiri

A lot of bad critique is levtitating (pun intended) around this film: bad script, bad acting, too many unfolded subplots, too few scary scenes etc etc.

Well, if you compare it straight off with The Exorcist - 1973, you won't get any arguments from me. But doing that is just silly. It has been 50 years since the first one, that is half a century. The 1973 film was from another time with diffrent values, different world, different schools concerning directing, acting, actors were different. Things change and it is impossible to recreate something that was made 50 yeras ago.

Some complain about the movie not bringing anything new, well, that's true for the film as a whole, but exorcist movies outside this franchise after 1990 does not bring anyhting new to the genre either. There are new, small bits and pieces in many of all the exorcist movies ever made up to date.

However, one piece of critique is correct: the film fails to create tension and mysticsim. But, on the other hand, no one can argue that Fellowship of the ring: the two towers creates the same feelings as the first one did either, because you know from the first film what to expect from the second. But that trilogy is outstandig when it comes to quality filmmaking.

The right question, which some reviewers ask, is: was this film necessary? Is a trilogy necessary? The answer is "no" and "absolutely not". Tons of exorcist movies have been made since 1973, as well as a tv series connected to the Exorcist franchise, so I do not think it is necessary to make a another sequel, even less a trilogy.

I love the genre and this franchise nontheless, which is why I give it 7/10, but to be objective it lacks in mystery and horror. So I agree with the rating 5/10 (28 of October 2023), the film is just too flat. That being said, if the plan is/was to make 2 more films we must be more patient and forgiving. However, the film does not stand out in comparison to other horror films, but the production values are good, the movie is well made, but lacks depth and suspense.

I'd say it is on par with Deliver us from evil (2014) and the Pope's exorcist (2023), less good than the Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005).

Do watch the Exorcism of God (2021), a great film that went under the radar.

I am clueless as to why this movie to this date, 1 of January 2023 is rated 5,3/10.

Plot: A secluded-living man wholed up at a house in the middle of nowhere starts getting messages from an unknown hard-to-reach person. Equally anoyed and entized he starts climbing that anthill (pun intended) to find out what is what.

Indeed, the story and how it unfolds is hard to stomach, borderline to the fantastic. But, boy, it does grab you by the balls.

More than one review complain about how it does not work. I agree in the sence that the build up is almost like reading a fantasy novel, in this case not dragons and lines like "You shall not pass!!", but the clues and how the movie untangles are very much like fantasy. They are highly unplausable and the details and how the antagonist have planned their execution is rich.

However, this is also why, in my opinion, the movie is totally awesome. There are some red herrings here and there, and I am the first to confess to the fact that I am not Hercule Poirot, but it took me a while before knowing what is what. I think more viewers than not figured everything out way before me.

But, I just love how the writer has come up with this story. A tip in the hat is in order. This is also why I love this movie, it drew me in from the start.

Guy Pearce is one of my favourite actors, but Jeremy Davies steals the show clean off. 54 movies to his toll makes him not so an accomplished actor, yet. I followed his work for a good while now (Saving Private Ryan and Justified) and the man is clearly being overlooked.

The movie shows good craftmanship all over. "Does not work"? Read two reviews, neither explain satisfactory why it does not work. Maybe they watched too many trailers. Perhaps the marketing of the movie in their country/-ies was done in the wrong way and sold the movie as horror or thriller.

Yes, the movie is hard to categorize. Imdb it tags it with "mystery" and "thriller", which is not wrong per se, but I would say "Nightcrawler" and "Prisoners" are thrillers which would make this movie null and void in that category.

So, who should watch this movie then? Well, those who expect horror elements...do not bother. Thrill seekers by "Nightcrawler" way...do not bother. Up for an entizing good time and enjoy I-cannot-wait-to-see-what-is going-happen-next-and-how-is-this-going-to-end feelings during playback...well, this movie is for you.

Serial killer movies is quite difficult to make. Much like horror movies, they are constructed around cliche. The key is character build up and craftmanship. Mindcage is full of cliche and none of craftmanship and character build up.

At times the movie seem to be over the top constructed around the cliches, and at that at beginner level, i.e. The red herrings are too obvious, and theses are crucial to mystery movies.

The movie also lacks fluency, i.e. The scenes are mechanically put together in segments with disturbedly incoherency.

Actorwise the selection is poorly made, especially the supporting roles. The husband of the lead character and the prison psychologist is a joke. Martin Lawrence will never be able to pull of a serious character/movie. Malkovitch tries his best, but delivers his standard unsettling character. Knepper is good as the sheriff and is always watchable.

It is not a terrible movie as such, but could have been done better by working the script more and used other actors. The movie uses some tricks to make it different from other serial killer movies. I cannot reveal them here since it would spoil the movie, but I would have used these tricks more and created fusion of horror/serial killer/mystery movie.

All in all, it is not a terrible movie, I have seen much worse. The movie is just flat. IMDB rates it, to this date, 4,1/10 and that is quite correct.