Connect with us

Editorials

In Defense of ‘Deliver Us From Evil’

Published

on

Aw c’mon, guys, it wasn’t that bad.

While I admit that Scott Derrickson’s Deliver Us From Evil failed to pack the punch I was hoping for, I’m gobsmacked over the amount of flak it’s getting from critics. The film currently has a 32 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, which bums me out because I feel that although it might not be successful on all fronts, the film is admirable as hell for trying to do something different within the constraints of the exorcism genre. In this article I wanna address some of the arguments critics have made against the film.

(spoilers follow, duh)

As a recovering Catholic, the use of demonic elements will always give me the willies. It never fails. Even though I don’t believe in a Devil, the fear of one is so ingrained in me that exorcism films (even shitty ones like The Devil Inside) will affect me at least a little. What makes Deliver Us From Evil more effective than others is that Derrickson (along with his co-writer Paul Harris Boardman) grounds the supernatural elements strongly in reality. Horror-procedural hybrids have been done before (Angel Heart comes to mind), but this is the first time I can remember recently where one took its supernatural elements so damn seriously. And not since The Exorcist back in 1973 has a possession film felt so much like it existed in the real world. Maybe The Entity, but that was more demonic molestation.

Derrickson has stated in interviews that he is in fact a man of faith, which definitely comes through in this film. Not just because of that preachy bit at the end at Sarchie’s kid’s baptism, but because of the consistently solemn tone in regards to the spiritual battle between good and evil Sarchie and Mendoza embark on. It’s way more absorbing and wholehearted than an exorcism movie needs to be.

Some of the negative reviews I’ve read of the film call its story disjointed and incohesive. That’s an argument I really don’t understand. At first it may feel like Sarchie and his partner Butler are aimlessly driving around the Bronx, taking random calls, but quickly it becomes apparent that it’s all a thread leading up to Sarchie’s spiritual journey. The dead baby in the alley, the domestic dispute, the infant-throwing at the zoo – it’s all connected to help Sarchie come to terms with the “true evil” Mendoza speaks of. Sarchie’s seen so much horrible shit in the “sewer” (as he refers to his job) that it reinforces Mendoza’s argument. He goes from disbelieving in God because of the shit he’s seen to recognizing it all as a sign of true evil. And it all really feels organic thanks in part to Eric Bana’s solid performance (despite that sketchy NY accent).

I’ve also heard critics bitch about the pace, that it takes too long to really have any thrust. This I disagree with too. The story is structured like a police procedural, so it purposefully lacks that aggressive pace in the beginning. We’ve seen the trailer, poster, commercials, etc., so we know what’s going on. Sarchie doesn’t so he’s got to use his detective skills and Popeye muscles to figure shit out. It’s a really interesting way to tell an exorcism story, much more compelling than someone getting possessed, then exorcised, roll credits. One critic I read even complained that the exorcism takes place at the end of the film. Say whaaa? That’s when it goes down in pretty much all of the exorcism films I’ve ever seen, so unless they’re complaining about it being a cliche, I really don’t get it.

Another common complaint was funny man Joel McHale playing a jacked up knife-enthusiast cop “adrenaline junkie.” Okay, with you on this one. It’s really tough to see past McHale, the sarcastic, dry-witted comedian that he is. I didn’t buy him at times either. There’s no denying the bro chemistry between him and Bana on screen though. They were entirely believable as partners, guys who have probably been driving around at night for years, using humor to cope with the sick side of humanity they witness every shift. During his brawl with Santino in the stairwell is the only time I could see past McHale and felt like I was watching the character of Butler. Once he realizes he can’t win, there was some goddamn conviction in McHale’s performance. I felt sorry for the macho bastard.

The one major complaint I wholeheartedly agree with is the use of The Doors as a major plot point. It would’ve been fine to bring up once or twice to help Sarchie connect the case of Jane to the others, but using it during the climactic exorcism scene was miserable. Once Jim Morrison’s heroin-fueled voice rang out, it totally broke the thick supernatural feel of the moment. Speaking of the exorcism scene, holy crap. That was a helluva process. I love that there were stages to it and that both Sarchie and the demon-fighting veteran Mendoza slipped during the incident, almost falling prey to Santino’s manipulation.

People bitched about Olivia Munn too and while I agree she’s not the greatest actress, she wasn’t given all that much to do.

Yes, Deliver Us From Evil is filled with cliches and elements we’ve seen countless times in exorcism and cop films, but Derrickson presents them a truly refreshing and serious way. Even the impossibly tired “your job is consuming your life and your ignoring your family and by the way I’m pregant” trope that seemingly every big screen detective goes through feels imaginative here against the backdrop of the supernatural. Before completely dismissing it based on the wave of negative reviews, I suggest checking it out. Exorcism films with big releases have been pretty lame lately (The Devil Inside, Devil’s Due), but Deliver Us From Evil is definitely a fresh and compelling take with atmosphere so thick you could cut it with a spoon.

Patrick writes stuff about stuff for Bloody and Collider. His fiction has appeared in ThugLit, Shotgun Honey, Flash Fiction Magazine, and your mother's will. He'll have a ginger ale, thanks.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading