Blind Beast (1969)

There are sometimes films which are depraved for the sake of being depraved. There is some seriously disturbing stuff happening on the screen but the progression of the narrative to reach that extreme stage seems so contrived that you ultimately end up somewhat dissatisfied in the end!

Based on Rampo Edogawa’s story, Yasuzo Masumura’s “Blind Beast” (1969) falls in this category. Michio (Eiji Funakoshi) is a blind sculptor (blind since birth) who has, over the years, developed the “sense of touch” to the fullest to satisfy or please himself. All other senses like sound, smell and sight are of no use to him because they aren’t the real deal and "sight" he has never known! He has come to learn a lot about how things may look and has developed his own understanding of the forms of various objects around him. Most notably he has become obsessed with the female body as he finds it the most beautiful creation and feeling up the female body parts gives him the most pleasure(!). He has a studio built out of a warehouse and it contains a lot of sculptures of the female body and the individual parts as he has perceived them using his sense of touch! And now he has made "pioneering the art of touch" his life's mission! "An art form for the blind, by the blind" as he describes it!

Enter beautiful model Aki (Mako Midori), stories of whose beautiful body Michio has heard! A desire to feel up Aki’s exquisite anatomy and to use her as a model for his latest sculpture drives Michio into kidnapping her with the help of his mother and holding her captive in his studio. Aki tries her best to flee but is overpowered by the blind sculptor and his mother. Amidst the labyrinth of giant female body parts including eyes, lips, nose, breasts, hands, legs, he starts building a sculpture, feeling up a reluctant Aki once in a while and then moulding his clay accordingly!

Aki starts thinking up ways to escape and even makes several attempts to trick the mother-son duo into letting her go. But a dramatic change of events turns this kidnap drama into a strange tale of macabre fetishism, as the kidnapped starts identifying with her captor and finds herself embracing his perverse ways…..

“Blind Beast” surely has the power to grip from its very first frame. The initial few sequences after the kidnapping are very well filmed and give a distinctly eerie and claustrophobic feel as Aki fumbles and stumbles in the surreal studio full of sculpted body parts. It is also commendable that the film doesn’t follow the oft-trodden path that kidnap dramas usually take. The final half hour takes an entirely different direction and that’s a good thing. What isn’t very appealing, however, is the abrupt manner in which that direction is taken! The jump or transition is somewhat half-baked. It is not entirely unusual for kidnap dramas to portray their victims as utterly stupid and clumsy idiots whose repeated attempts to escape always predictably fail, because if the escape really happens, then there is nothing left to film! “Blind Beast”’s Aki is no different, as in spite of some clever tricks she plays to fool the mother-son duo whilst trying to escape, she always manages to bungle up in the end. That’s not all, what’s more frustrating is how she even gets overpowered by a completely blind man and sometimes even misses some blatantly obvious chances of getting the better of him….all for the sake of movie continuity perhaps?

It also doesn’t help that the otherwise efficient blind person who is very adept at sensing a presence from their smell, footsteps and breathing sounds, lacks consistency and behaves in the clunkiest manner at times. Towards the third act, as the film gets to its focal point in a bizarre twist to the proceedings, we, the audiences wonder…how did things even get so far? It just doesn’t quite cut it.

But for all its worth, “Blind Beast” is a watchable film and manages to disturb the viewer in the final act, with terrific performances from the two leads Mako Midori and Eiji Funakoshi. One wonders though, whether this film was an excuse for the filmmaker and the lead actor to simply to feed their nasty appetite of fondling their lead woman, because moments when she ISN’T groped in this film are few and far between!

Score: 7/10.

Werckmeister Harmonies (2000)

A small town. A drunk room; a rather dreary bar with two big lights hanging from the ceiling. Village simpletons falling all over the floor with an overdose of drinks. “You tubs of beer”..the bartender calls them! At closing time, a wide-eyed, gaunt, but seemingly popular young man walks in. He is Janos Valuska (Lars Rudolph). He uses the drunks at the bar as props and demonstrates the Solar Eclipse and the effects of this phenomenon on the behavior of the mortal beings of the earth. The scene lasts for the first 10-12 minutes and ends with a melancholic, haunting score by Mihaly Vig. This single scene is so beautiful, it sets the tone for what’s to come.

There is a shroud of ambiguity over Hungarian filmmaker Bela Tarr’s “Werckmeister Harmonies” (co-directed by Ágnes Hranitzky). There is communication that is very vague. Things are spoken about something bad that happened before and something terrible that’s perhaps about to happen. And in some towns, they say it has already begun. Is it the advent of the apocalypse?

At the center of this mystery is a stuffed giant whale, a part of a “circus” that has arrived in town. This circus also features the enigmatic “Prince”. With the coming of the whale and the Prince there is suddenly a ‘lack of harmony’ within the quietude of the town. Foreigners have started encroaching. There are stories that they have started rioting and looting. The whale is perhaps the reason. Most people seem to regard the whale as an abomination. Only Janos sees it as a bounty of nature, a miracle of God…Janos is clearly an optimist. Or is it the Prince who is behind all the turbulence? There are all kinds of stories. The dead whale and the Prince are somehow responsible for creating ripples in the otherwise still waters of the quiet little town. They have already spread their wings on other parts of the country. But are all these just urban legends?

One of the main characters, György Eszter (Peter Fitz), speaks about how the musical intervals and harmonies as we know them over the centuries are “false” and the result of a huge scandal brought about by a certain Andreas Werckmeister. The title alludes to the harmonies or lack thereof owing to some funny business brought about by Werckmeister as a result of an “unhinged arrogance” that wished to take possession of the natural harmonies of the Gods! This one scene and the philosophy within has a strong connection with the overall theme of the film…lack of harmony and how it is brought about!

Eszter’s former wife Aunt Tunde (Hanna Schygulla) has an agenda of her own…she is out to initiate a “clean town” project with the help of her current lover, the Police Chief, for which she needs her former husband’s help. “Our Janos” (as he is referred to by all townsfolk who like him) is entrusted the task of convincing Eszter to use his command and popularity to get support of the movement. Eszter reluctantly agrees. “I've paid for it and I may pay for it all my life”, he says. But what exactly? Tarr doesn’t think that is important. We never get to know. He clearly loves ambiguity.

Tarr also loves extremely long takes, stark Black and White cinematography (beautiful at that), a somber mood, melancholic score, a languorous pace, bleak imagery and an overall sense of doom and despair. There are long philosophical monologues which are almost poetic and need to be heard at least twice to grasp. There is a distinct “meditative” feel to the proceedings. It is not difficult to spot the heavy Andrei Tarkovsky influence here, just as in other films of his. But Tarr’s pictures are less abstract than those of the great Russian filmmaker. “Werckmeister Harmonies” is mostly materialism heavy but there certainly is some symbolism embedded in the narrative. The “Prince” who travels with the whale, for example, is a mysterious faceless creature who seems to have immense powers. A clock that was dead for years started ticking again as he went past! And he apparently also incites rioting. He doesn’t believe in any greater power or authority either. Is he then the “Prince of darkness” with a thirst for destruction?

Tarr demonstrates his ability to create a powerful impact through the marriage of visuals and sound. On one hand there is the scene in which Vig’s soulful music accompanies, like Janos appreciating the whale and being awestruck by its enormity. And then there is the scene in a newspaper factory. Long monologues and ambient sounds serve as a background to Janos’ mundane activities being filmed, and later the camera slowly pans to the person delivering the monologue! Then, of the several long tracking shots, a particular shot of Janos and Eszter walking adjacent to each other in an almost synchronized march of their feet (with only the sound of their feet and a lunch box providing the sound…carrying on for a good 2-3 minutes!) can’t help but bring a smile on your face. Apparently, for one other scene, in which a lot of people are marching together to reach a destination, Tarr was asked why the scene is that long. Tarr simply answered “that’s how long it took to get there!”

“Werckmeister Harmonies”, like any other Bela Tarr film, is surely not for the impatient viewer. It is for that segment of film lovers who love their films grave; and who don’t mind the scenes playing out real time, with the editing process being allowed to take the back seat as long as the final product delivers. Suffice to say, Tarr manages to engulf the viewer under his spell and guarantees a hypnotic audiovisual experience, one that culminates into a powerful ending that leaves a lasting impact….

Score: 10/10.

Week End (1967)

When was the last time you had a hell lot of fun while watching a film? And we aren’t even talking escapist, commercial popcorn flicks or sitcoms! Far from it. We’re talking about an avant-garde surrealist film, highly disturbing yet darkly humorous at the same time….in French New Wave style!

Jean-Luc Godard’s “Weekend” (sometimes written “Week End”) will guarantee a delightfully macabre ride through hell, as a husband and wife cheating on each other decide to ride to the country to secure inheritance from the parents of the wife, by possibly murdering her father! Sounds crazy? Not half as crazy as what ensues next as their journey turns into an outlandish odyssey through a nightmare full of traffic jams and gruesome car accidents and terrorists and hippies and cannibals!

What “Weekend” is about is difficult to pen. Perhaps it is about Godard’s bizarre vision of the apocalypse; of a bleak future that’s going to see the end of civilization as we know it; a world in which people will turn on one another and start raping and looting and killing and eating each other! A world in which the bourgeois society will bear the brunt of its own materialistic trappings…when people will become so insensitive, they will even steal stuff off of dead bodies rather nonchalantly!

Or perhaps “Weekend” is merely a black comedy built around everything Godard personally hated and wanted to make fun of, through the medium he knows best…cinema! And he pulls it off like there’s no tomorrow! Sometimes he also resorts to self-parody! And for that, he uses some insane yet subtle absurdist humour. Blink and you may miss some of the gems and golden lines uttered in this film. Sample this: Roland (Jean Yanne) abandons (or loses) his car and starts out on foot with his wife Corinne (Mireille Darc ). On the way there are numerous mangled bodies, victims of car accidents and the remains of their vehicles lying around, but they are just casually ignored! Roland tries to ask directions to another character in the film, gets some loony response in return and comments “What a rotten film! All we meet are crazy people!”

Godard, an eccentric auteur that he is, makes sure he frustrates his audiences as well as keeps them hooked with his bravura writing. Usage of intertitles isn’t uncommon in a Godard film, but in “Weekend” they take on a new, entirely free form, get sprinkled arbitrarily between scenes, interrupting randomly yet trying to say something about the scene at hand. But they don’t always take a serious form; sometimes some of the dialog uttered takes the form of intertitles, sometimes Godard tries to be funny by adding title cards like “A film found on scrap heap” to describe this motion picture! At other times we see some sharp political jibes.

Then there are the typical Godard idiosyncrasies including a background score that sometimes drowns the dialog and appears out of nowhere and disappears just as suddenly as it appeared; some deliberate repetitions of scenes and dialogs as if it’s some editing flaw! And let’s not forget the over 8 minutes long tracking shot of a traffic jam accompanied by blaring car horns in the background and car drivers cursing each other in the foreground! This shot ends in an ironic fashion that reveals the cause of the jam! The film takes dramatic turns with one bizarre event after another, subjecting us to a savagely funny ride, with senseless political speeches, oddball camerawork and ultimately  an allegorical, chaotic finale…..the aim was clearly to alarm the viewer and leave him/her in a jaw-dropped state!

There are notable movie references....although it is difficult to say in one case; a “Persona”-esque (Ingmar Bergman, 1966) monologue of Corinne narrating a particularly wild sexual adventure, and in a nod to Luis Bunuel, perhaps, a title card that reads “The Exterminating Angel” (1962). Speaking of Bunuel, it is not difficult to find some creative similarities between “Weekend” and Bunuel’s “The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie”. Nonetheless, this could be a first film of its kind for Godard (it is a significant departure compared to his earlier 60s works) and he makes sure he leaves no stone unturned in delivering a masterwork. “Weekend” could very well have been rechristened “Week End” (as it is known in some countries) owing to the fact that this was Godard’s final film of his most celebrated cinematic period.

Highly imaginative, but pure Madness; Godard’s “Weekend” = Luis Bunuel on steroids!

Score: 10/10 (Hands down!)

Black Moon (1975)

A lot of avant-garde filmmakers experimented with Lewis Carroll’s classic novel “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”. Some features that come to mind are Jaromil Jires’ wonderful film, “Valerie and her Week of Wonders”, Guillermo Del Toro’s “Pan’s Labyrinth” and Jan Svankmajer’s “Alice”. Louis Malle’s surrealist experimental film “Black Moon” could very well fit into this category of the directors’ own interpretation of the novel giving it their own “free form”!

Written by Louis Malle in collaboration with Joyce Bunuel (Luis Bunuel's daughter-in-law!) and directed by Louis Malle, “Black Moon” is devoid of any central plot as such. Set against a post-apocalyptic backdrop of a “war between the sexes”, this film simply chronicles the weird happenings as experienced (or imagined?) by a teenage girl, Lily (Cathryn Harrison)  who has narrowly escaped being killed by men seemingly out to wipe out the entire women populace! Having been lucky to have escaped, she just speeds away in her car deep into the woods only to come across an isolated property, a huge manor house and its strange inhabitants. The house is dwelled in by a cantankerous, bed ridden old lady (Therese Giehse) with a weird fetish, who talks to animals, especially a big rat-like creature “Humphrey” in some language that’s gibberish, and every once in a while speaks on a radio kept by her bed. There is a brother-sister pair around the house to take care of stuff. They don’t speak a single word. They only hum some songs as they work around the property. Some snakes tucked away in unlocked drawers also share the space with them!

The most bizarre of all though, is the presence of about half a dozen naked children running around playing with a gigantic pig; they keep interrupting Lily’s path every time she chases a not-so-graceful Unicorn that seems to be a regular visitor around the property…..

Everything sounds very interesting for film lovers who love their films rife with surreal dreamscapes but frankly it doesn’t go much beyond this. The film surely holds our interest for most of its modest running time of about 95 minutes thanks to the splendid camerawork by the genius cinematographer Sven Nykvist and the rather awe-inspiring sound design. In a fabulous close-up of a crawling centipede, you can actually “hear” the little thing crawl on a surface! In another hilarious scene (repeated twice), amidst near dead silence, a pig sitting at a table, apparently guarding a large glass of milk kept at the center of the table, lets out a loud grunt every time Lily gulps milk from it!

These are just some of the really jaw-droppingly outlandish scenes in the film and there are a good number of them. There are some scenarios that are so absurd, they are comical and that’s a good thing, but after a while the same devices are recycled instead of bringing in some novelty factor. Once one gives in to the idea of absurdist fiction, then there are no limits to what one can do! But surrealism not being Malle’s forte, he leaves a little to be desired in his product. If a premise that automatically creates endless possibilities starts to get repetitive then there is a problem somewhere! Malle even tries to infuse some allegorical allusions to the Indian epic Ramayana (a particular episode involving “Jatayu”, the demi-god possessing the form of a vulture, who tries to save Sita from Raavana’s clutches!) but it doesn’t necessarily create a huge impact in the overall proceedings.

This is an English language film and Cathryn Harrison, portraying Lily clearly speaks in English. However Therese Giehse’s (Old Lady) speech sounds dubbed in English and her lip movement is ridiculously out of sync. It is unclear whether this was intentional or a technical glitch, a bad dubbing job or a bad lip-synching job! At times even Harrison’s dialog seems out of sync. Some of it sounds really dumb as well!

If one thinks from a certain angle, there certainly is an interpretation that gives the happenings on screen some meaning and a vaguely fitting explanation which could even reflect religious themes! I would not like to adhere to any theory or interpretation though. I think it is safe to assume that Louis Malle didn’t want to make a deeply thought-provoking or metaphorical film. He merely wanted to compile some dream-like visions into a motion picture laced with themes of civil war and futuristic dystopia and a teenager’s coming-of-age, and that’s fair enough. He wanted his film to be more a visual experience than a cerebral puzzle. Only Luis Bunuel or David Lynch could’ve done a much better job with the material at hand.

Score: 7/10.

Cavite (2005)

A couple of Filipino guys put together a brilliant idea and decided to make a film on it. Neill Dela Llana and Ian Gamazon, two ambitious young men had the concept very much in place.

The idea revolves around an American Filipino named Adam, returning to his homeland in the Philippines only to become the target of a mysterious caller on a cell phone who has kidnapped his sister and mother and threatens to kill them if Adam doesn’t comply with certain demands of his. He is not allowed to hang up either. The caller has a task for Adam and Adam is supposed to see it through to its conclusion, failing which the consequences would be dire! Adam finds himself constantly stalked as he is made to travel all around Cavite city and explore its dark underbelly, in order to run the caller’s “errand”. Everywhere he goes he feels he is being watched and a lot of people seem to be “in on it”, as at every step, Adam finds something which enables him to move forward in his task. What’s more…the caller seems to know his every move! The plot thickens as Adam finds there is more to it than meets the eye. Why has he been chosen by the caller? Could it be some extremists who have involved him in something much more dangerous than he can handle?

So there you have it. Sounds great on paper, right? But does every great idea transform into a well-executed motion picture? Sadly not, and “Cavite” is testimony to this fact.

“Cavite” partially works solely due to its interesting premise. It is this premise that somewhat manages to engage the viewer, not the execution; because the execution simply doesn’t have much to talk about. Shot entirely on handheld camera that gets irritating after a while with its constantly wobbly and brownish yellow cinematography, the film captures mostly the squalid parts of the city where there are squatter camps and garbage dumps and hungry, naked children! Now such visuals should normally move the viewer but blame it on the handling, it fails to resonate with the viewer or evoke any kind of emotion, barring a few scenes which speak volumes of the inherent hypocrisy of terrorists who scream “Jihad” at the drop of a hat! Certain props used to scare or disturb us clearly appear fake and that is another big failure on the filmmakers’ part. The film feels slightly long even for its considerably short 80 minutes length, thanks to a lazy screenplay which just doesn’t reflect the sense of urgency or anxiety that is very much essential for the subject at hand. There are hardly any tense moments and the apart from the filmmaker, the person largely to be blamed for this is the lead actor, Ian Gamazon!

This is the kind of story that has to depend on the protagonist’s able shoulders, because ultimately, it is his predicament that is supposed to evoke sympathy in his favour and thus engage the viewer. Sadly our hero proves to be the weakest link as he fails to bring out the helplessness or the vexation that any guy in his shoes would feel. If someone is holding your mother and sister hostage and wants you to carry out a task that could get you in trouble, you should be one big bundle of nerves! But Gamazon almost casually goes through everything, trying to force some emotions on his face once a while and swearing out loud when he is unable to. Alas, it amounts to hardly anything and this is the film’s biggest failure. The actor just fails to connect with the audiences! Then how are we supposed to care about his outcome anyway. The background score is also very uninspired and incomplete; perhaps some attention to a good score could’ve provided some leverage to the film.

Some suspense built in the final half hour of the film raises our expectations and one wishes the makers hadn’t been slothful with the conclusion at least, but the film pretty much ends with a whimper. Add to that some done to death clichéd ramblings about how Muslims are targeted everywhere, thus forcing them to build terrorist outfits for “Jihad” all around the world and one particularly cringe-worthy scene about Adam’s American girlfriend “not wanting to have a Muslim baby” further mar any bright prospects for the film in the audiences’ favour.

“Cavite” is a solid idea that just barely makes it in getting successfully transferred to a gripping motion picture. It has its moments but as an overall product, it just about manages to stay afloat. Watch only if you must….

(Trivia :-)…But here’s an interesting fact. In 2008, Indian director Raj Kumar Gupta made “Aamir”, a Bollywood film which rips off the premise and most of the screenplay of “Cavite”.  Only the action is shifted to streets of Mumbai city instead of Cavite! “Aamir” is a better made film, is considerably gripping and has a much better actor (Rajeev Khandelwal) playing the central actor. However, nothing can change the fact that it is shameless and unethical rip-off of “Cavite”. One only wishes Gupta had officially purchased the rights instead of blatantly copying, thinking that no one would notice. Sad..

Score: 6/10.

Simon of the Desert (1965)

It is typical of every religion to preach that self-sacrifice is the path to find God. That giving up all the "pleasures" of the world will purify man. Wonder where those teachings came from, but it is quite a common trait, no matter what religion. Embrace asceticism, rid yourself of the so-called "worldly pleasures" or "sins" and achieve your spiritual or religious goals! The ultimate path to salvation is here!

The Catholic teachings are no different, and Luis Bunuel has always been highly critical of organized religion. He has dedicated so many of his films as tools to launch razor sharp, scathing attacks on these beliefs or the Church in general. 

Loosely based on the real life story of the 5th century ascetic Saint Simeon Stylites, who spent 39 years atop a column ,"Simon of the Desert" is no exception. Picture a bearded monk, Simon (Claudio Brook), devoting his life to ascetic ways. He has already spent six years, six weeks and six days atop a pillar in the middle of the desert, praying for spiritual purification. He has gained a good amount of followers; mostly peasants, some priests and other village folk who believe that he has been blessed with special powers. They come to him for help or deliver some food from time to time. He is offered a brand new, taller pillar as a token of their faith and respect for his sacrifice. Simon continues his act of good faith, keeps delivering sermons and can even seemingly perform miracles.....

Sounds like a serious, religious, deeply meaningful, preachy biography of a Saint? Not in the Luis Bunuel universe! Trust Bunuel to turn something that sounds very deep and heavy into a darkly humorous, absurd mock-fest that is unrelenting and uncompromising in its ways so much so as to scandalize half the audiences who could be believers!

So this whole God-fearing stuff takes a dramatic turn as some of the priests and peasants start getting critical of Simon and think it is all in vain. Simon is taken to be an arrogant man by some, and a few others think he is faking it. Simon himself begins to deem his actions futile on several occasions. What's more...the Devil shows up too, and tries to "tempt" Simon in his many ways by appearing in the form of a beautiful woman (Silvia Pinal) in an attempt to seduce Simon out of his saintly ways! Will Simon yield to the temptation? 

Bunuel takes only about 45 minutes to drive his point across and does it with his masterful touch. Accompanied by Gabriel Figueroa's beautiful camerawork, Bunuel makes unpredictable transitions from realism to surrealism to hilarious absurdism all in the miniscule time frame that was available to him. Apparently Gustavo Alatriste, the producer could no longer fund the film for some reasons and that is how Bunuel was forced to abruptly end the film (with a bizarre ending that has been criticized in several write-ups, but do not be misled...it does have its place..and its own charm based on the interpretation), while in reality he wished to add more material to the film. Whatever the reasons, the end result is a highly original, savagely funny and one of the most eccentric works of cinema from the twisted mind of Luis Bunuel. 

Pay especially careful attention to certain scenes in which Simon mutters random religious ramblings on seeing some ordinary creatures like an insect (that has absolutely no idea of what is going on!) and later tries to do the same with an inanimate object but gives up! Or the scene in which Simon performs a miracle and gives a cripple a new pair of hands...and the eventual consequence of it! Or that brutally funny scene in which some of the priests don't seem to know the meaning of a particular Biblical reference. Every scene drips a lot of really clever writing....and there is no question that this is an exemplary work of genius from the great director. 

Bunuel's pick of actors add to the amazing experience with their superb performances, especially Claudio Brook, Silvia Pinal and the midget Jesus Fernandez.

"Simon of the Desert" is the kind of film that leaves you wanting more. Another 45 minutes of running time perhaps?

Check out this masterpiece...do not waste anymore time.

Score: 10/10.

Bug (2006)

Poor Michael Shannon! Imagine having to play the same role time and again and turning something as exciting as acting into a mundane routine. In William Friedkin’s colossal misfire of a psychological thriller, Shannon portrays yet another nutcase (who goes by the name of Peter Evans), this time a ‘delusional paranoid schizophrenic’…but a bigger one compared to his recent “Take Shelter”. But that isn’t the least of our worries. He is also a violent crackpot, a total madcap who inflicts cuts and wounds on himself!

What’s more..he has great convincing power, whereby he is capable of making a complete fool out of a seemingly sane but depressed Agnes (Ashley Judd). Friedkin takes us audiences to be complete dimwits too, what with Agnes’ lesbian friend R.C. who ‘just met’ Peter introduces him to Agnes and brings him to Agnes’ motel room for a night of alcohol and cocaine binging! Now it is just one meeting but after some sob stories and a surprisingly quick bonding later, Agnes and Peter end up having sex! One unconvincing situation after the other and we get to the focal point…..the bug infestation! Peter suddenly starts finding bugs everywhere…on him, around him, and keeps slapping himself once in a while in an attempt to kill these bugs….Agnes can’t see anything, but Peter, the great convincer that he is manages to convince Agnes that the room is infested with bugs.

And to add to it there’s a bizarre conspiracy theory of the US army using Peter as a guinea pig to conduct some ghastly experiments which include planting bug egg-sacs in his tooth! By the time the senile old Friedkin starts bombarding all this nonsense on his audiences, we are already awaiting the end of the film, simply because we are just not interested in the madness anymore. And Shannon, being Shannon and a pro at acting like a psychotic weirdo, has a ball doing it, with extra gusto this time...convulsing, swatting invisible bugs all over his body, inflicting injuries, twitching his face, slapping it once in a while, hollering at the top of his voice concocting one theory after another as to what actually is happening with him and Agnes! Judd joins in, with an initially stellar performance which unfortunately takes a free fall in the second half of the film, in which both Judd and Shannon seem to be vying for the trophy of the most ridiculously over-the-top and unintentionally comic performance of all time! A nervous wreck that she becomes, she also mouths off loud lines in resonance with Shannon’s insane ramblings about implanted computer chips and manufactured zombies, human guinea pigs and androids posing as humans ……..you feel like reaching for the stop button already! At one point of time I literally felt like getting a bug spray and dousing Shannon and Judd in it to free them from their misery!

Add to that Friedkin’s non-serious attitude thanks to which he throws so much of logic right out the window….I mean, it’s a Motel room that’s been turned into a tin foil house decorated with bug zappers! Where are the Motel authorities for Christ sakes?! Agnes is supposed to be great friends with R.C. but she trusts Peter over R.C. and slaps R.C. out of her room! A lot more incredibly brainless situations abound. Throw in some couple more stupid scenes and a subplot revolving around Agnes’ estranged abusive ex-hubby Jerry (Harry Connick Jr) who acts like a tough guy wife-beater in one scene, yet foolishly gets his hand stapled in the other….. and voila! You got the perfect schlock in the name of a “disturbing psychological horror”.

But that’s not all! Friedkin gets even more ambitious…and tries to do a Hitchcock here, and needless to say, fails miserably in creating any sort of locked-in, claustrophobic atmosphere, which just comes across as a cheap imitation. Shyamalan did a much better job in “Signs”. There are but a few tense moments which are far between and can’t do much to save the film as a whole. There’s also Judd’s fine acting until she turns into a hysterical comedian  joining in the cacophony of Shannon’s jitter-‘bug’ maniacal clown. Both of them devise a ‘great’ plan to save the world from the bug infection, one that’s supposed to affect us deeply; but we find that we have almost given up by the third act…..

Score: 3/10.