Quantcast
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.

10 Comments

Editorials

Neon-Soaked Cult Classic ‘Vamp’ Starring Grace Jones Still Has Bite 40 Years Later

Published

on

Vamp 1986
Grace Jones and Dedee Pfeiffer in Vamp

College kids, strippers and vampires—those were Donald P. Borchers’ only requirements when he approached Richard Wenk about writing and directing a movie for New World Pictures. As requested, Wenk cooked up Vamp (1986), a tailor-made blend of the decade’s teen movie craze as well as its horror boom.

Grim and earnest stories were still very much a part of the ’80s horror landscape, yet Vamp is something of a comedy. One difference between it and, say, Saturday the 14th, though, is the former avoids using schtick. Wenk’s movie proves that horror comedies also don’t have to subtract thrills from their recipes. Of course, it takes a minute before reaching that point; college antics and culture shocks preface this one macabre misadventure.

Vamp‘s initial setup is apt for a typical college-set, sex-driven comedy; to bribe their way into a fraternity house, two pledges (Chris Makepeace, Robert Rusler) go looking for some adult entertainment. Without wasting time on any further exposition, the characters embark on an all-in-one-night trip that quickly detours into terror.

To procure their elusive MacGuffin—a stripper willing to gyrate for some frat boys—Keith (Makepeace) and AJ (Rusler), plus a third wheel named Duncan (Gedee Watanabe), trade the safety of their remote college campus for the seediness of some unnamed city. The setting is recognizably L.A. by day, but as soon as night falls, downtown, along with the characters, slips into a kind of surreal universe. Director of photography Elliot Davis gave this early entry on his prolific résumé an unusual yet distinctive look; that Mario Bava-esque, magenta-green lighting is omnipresent, so much so that it’s almost its own character. 

vamp

Chris Makepeace and Robert Rusler in Vamp

The faint comparisons to Martin Scorsese’s After Hours are merited, although not just because of Vamp’s distinguishing nighttime aesthetic. Save for the primary characters, the supporting roles in Wenk’s movie are also quite colorful and transactional in their behavior. The difference here, though, is the additional urge to ruin Keith and his friends at every turn. Some of that harm is humorous and tolerable enough, whereas the moment Vamp dishes out its first fatality, it’s abundantly clear how this movie qualifies as horror.

Vamp falls into that category of horror movie that reveals its genre with a scream rather than a series of whispers. The opening scene can function as a hint of what lies ahead—things are not at all what they appear to be—but otherwise, Wenk is more than happy to hold off on the horror. When that time does come, though, it catches the viewer off guard. In addition to the pure shock value is that sudden decision to upend the movie’s foremost feature. Or so it would seem.

If afraid of major spoilage, those new to Vamp would be wise to stop reading here. There’s just no skirting around the fact that the central fellowship in this buddy movie hits a serious snag when AJ is killed. That development causes the story to become more of a “long, bad night” journey for Keith and his romantic interest. So while Wenk scores points for subverting expectations, there is also a touch of sadness in his decision. Because if Vamp does anything well, it’s making the characters likable.

Something that comes easily to Vamp—and other teen horror movies from this same era—is its ability to invent young characters worth caring about, or at the very least, are interesting and not so immediately off-putting. More impressive is how Wenk did all this without actually fleshing out those characters. Still and all, Keith and his kind are a grade above cookie-cutter, and in some cases, aren’t completely devoid of growth.

vamp

Grace Jones in Vamp

Vamp appeals with an assorted cast of characters. No two are the same, nor are they operating on the same wavelength. The cinematically extroverted AJ, whose actor conveyed charm and vulnerability in near equal amounts, comes alive when he’s at his most undead. Makepeace then makes the chronically cautious Keith a sympathetic fellow, even as he’s more and more affected by the night’s bizarre events. Meanwhile, Duncan is indeed the designated loser of the whole bunch, but Watanabe still manages to humanize him. As a bonus, the role didn’t require him to pull a Long Duk Dong.

As for Dedee Pfeiffer, she is plain adorable as the mysterious After Dark server nicknamed “Amaretto”. She spends all night fixing her dress strap while at the same time trying to get Keith to remember how he knows her. As their offbeat romance grows, it becomes another highlight of this movie. Whether or not Pfeiffer’s character is really a vampire also creates some welcome tension in the story.

Like a lot of its contemporaries, Vamp went on to become a bit of a cult classic. That current status is determined by several factors, but without a doubt, the casting of Grace Jones is the most considerable. The image of her writhing on that unique-looking chair, a Keith Haring original, springs to mind whenever this movie is brought up.

vamp

Chris Makepeace, Billy Drago and Paunita Nichols in Vamp

Prior to that first display of unequivocal horror, local vampire queen Katrina (Jones) took to the stage and delivered a strip show like no other. One would expect nothing less from that renowned model and performance artist. By now reports of Jones’ tardiness on set are no secret, yet it’s also hard to deny her commitment to the part of Katrina. It was, in fact, Jones who took charge of her character’s appearance—on top of Haring painting her body and that now-iconic chair, she had Andy Warhol handle her costuming. And not too many actors could seize a room’s attention without saying a single line of dialogue.

In 2022, Vamp received a retrospective novelization from Encyclopocalypse. This literary union of preexisting source material—Wenk’s original screenplay—and new ideas from author Christian Francis amounts to a more comprehensive visit to the After Dark Club. The basic story there is no different than what’s shown on screen; however, Francis gets creative with the characters’ origins and designs, and he enhances a number of key scenes.

The novelization expands on the urban and social decay of the main setting, and supplies a background for the After Dark Club. Sandy Baron’s character, Katrina’s emcee and familiar, is given ample motivation for sticking around; up until the fiery end, he is loyal to his friend and former business partnerSqueak, who looks like he wasfed through a combine harvester, and left as nothing more than a heap of mangled remains. Then there is Billy Drago’s character Snow, the leader of a street gang called The Dragons. His reason for menacing Keith and AJ is more altruistic than in the movie; he and his peers act tough to scare off any potential food for the vampires. 

vamp

Lisa Lyon in Vamp

If not for all the backstories, Francis’ Vamp would be a hell of a lot shorter. Instead, this tie-in read dives into how AJ met Keith—the orphaned Anthony Joseph hailed from a broken home back in Brooklyn—and how their friendship flourished over the years. Keith’s archership is no longer just an assumed part of his entire being; it’s a confidence-building extracurricular for a boy who got picked on before coming into the protection of the new kid in town. These supplemental, in-depth looks at the protagonists, plus their close connection, are maybe unnecessary. The movie already did a fair and concise job of addressing their platonic intimacy without the need for flashbacks and insights, specifically in that scene where AJ lays it all out as he sacrifices himself.

Where the novelization gets off course is its approach to the minor characters. Intermittently backstorying the likes of Katrina’s indentured servants, Seko (Leila Hee Olsen) and Vlad (Brad Logan), ends up disturbing the flow of the writing. Was it absolutely essential that readers know Vlad was the Grand Duke of the House of Romanov, or how Snow’s accomplice Maven (Paunita Nichols) became so dentally challenged? No, not really. However, one’s mileage with these random biographies may vary.

The novelization is a more substantial experience, but for a movie like Vamp, less is more. And as plentiful as they are, it never simply coasts on its campy charms, either. The character work sits comfortably in that realm between cursory and meticulous, the script is sharper than first realized, and Greg Cannom’s vampire makeup is straightforward yet effective. Most of all, the movie didn’t squander its out-of-the-box concept. Richard Wenk made his vision of acomic nightmare in which just about anything that can go wrong doescome true, and it is very enjoyable.

Continue Reading