This ‘Exorcist’ can’t scare up any terror

JOHN DEPKO

Horror films have often used scary monsters and the fear of violent

death to frighten the audience. Over the years, advances in special

effects produced ever-more blood-chilling scenes with increasingly

realistic gore.

But the true masters of the genre learned to use psychological

terror as the basis for scaring us to death. Alfred Hitchcock’s

“Psycho” and Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining” succeeded by turning

ordinary men into believable beasts from our worst nightmares.

The first “Exorcist” was a combination of the two approaches. It

broke new ground by being truly frightening on a spiritual level. The

real monster was not a physical creature, but a demon that could take

over the mind and body of even a child, and with terrifying

consequences. The possessed human then becomes the evil fiend who

wrecks holy havoc on the poor mortals at hand.

“Exorcist: The Beginning” continues this formula, but lacks the

visceral punch of the original. There’s a lot more gore, but watching

it is more revolting than terrifying.

The director uses every cheap shot in the horror movie playbook to

keep you jumping in your seat. The title of this film should be, “The

Exorcist: Sudden Loud Noises” Most of the jolts for the audience come

from this predictable timeworn technique, splashed with lots of

blood. Rest assured, this movie is meant for only hard-core fans of

the dark side of cinema.

On the plus side, Stellan Skarsgard is convincing as the

fallen-away priest turned archaeologist, who confronts the demon at

the heart of the tale. Taking place right after World War II, there

are many flashbacks to the very real horrors of the Nazi rampage,

which lend some credence to the ultimate plot of good vs. evil. But

this is still a Frankenstein of a movie -- a patchwork effort

involving three different directors, replacement actors and

ever-changing ideas about what the final cut should be.

It’s no surprise that the studio did not prescreen the movie for

critics.

* JOHN DEPKO is a Costa Mesa resident and a senior investigator

for the Orange County public defender’s office.

Couples find depressing way to ‘Live’ their lives

“We Don’t Live Here Anymore” will fascinate and depress you. Based

on two short stories by Andre Dubus (“In the Bedroom”), it features

terrific ensemble acting in a very intense drama of sexual

tic-tac-toe between two married couples. But in this game, everybody

loses.

Jack, Terry, Hank and Edith are best friends who enjoy spending a

lot of time together. Jack and Hank have a certain scruffy charm and

teach literature at the local college. Hank (Peter Krause) writes

poetry and novels in search of a publisher. Hank’s beautifully

pristine wife Edith (Naomi Watts) is having a steamy affair with Jack

(Mark Ruffalo) -- they flash knowing looks at each other at dinner

parties and make love in the woods.

Jack’s wife Terry (Laura Dern) is wild haired, sloppy and drinks

too much. She is also no fool when it comes to her husband and

suspects he’s cheating on her. Their evenings usually end up with her

screaming and Jack running out the door, but the next morning, they

pretend that everything is just fine so as not to worry the kids.

Jack’s passive-aggressive behavior is maddening. He manipulates

Terry into sleeping with Hank, who has made no secret of his

womanizing ways. Edith seems to want Hank to find out about her

affair, and we suspect Hank already knows but doesn’t care.

Does anybody have any true love or passion for anyone in this

movie? Only Terry, with her volatile temper, seems willing to fight

for her marriage. The others are just going through the motions. At

least both couples are sincerely devoted to their children, who must

be suffering dearly for their parents’ foolishness.

* SUSANNE PEREZ lives in Costa Mesa and is an executive assistant

for a financial services company.