Open Grave (2013) A Twist On The Whodunnit

The "whodunnit" subgenre of mystery always holds possibilities for something fun.  From guessing the "who" to the "why," it's the next best thing in audience participation to actually being there.  And it's easy:  just keep watching or reading and the mystery will be solved.

The problem with reviewing whodunnits is accidentally revealing spoilers.  So, I'll do what I can, but I can only go so far.  Seriously, I can't even put the right labels on this blog entry without revealing what happens in the film, Open Grave.  Part of the fun is getting there, and slipping in a label that spoils it:  no fun.

Open Grave was written by Chris and Eddie Borey and directed by Gonzalo López-Gallego (Apollo 18), and stars Sharlto Copely (District 9, The A-Team) as a man who suddenly awakens in a pit during a late-night thunderstorm.  Lightning flashes reveal the soft, squishy ground he's recovered on:  the pit is filled with dead bodies.  Before he can do a total freakout, and wracked with pain from some unknown cause, someone lowers a rope down and helps him out.  The man finds a house in the darkness, occupied by several other jumpy, rightfully paranoid people.  The thing is, no one knows who they are.  Their memories are pretty much wiped, although there is some instinct memory.  One of them knows how to load and reload a gun.  Another can speak Latin.  But all of them have no idea how they got to this house, why the pit is full of dead people, and how the puncture marks got on their arms.  Slowly, the group searches for clues and starts to realize that something is definitely not quite right.  In some areas, there are dead bodies bound to trees with barbed wire.  One of the group who presumes he was a soldier encounters an emaciated man trapped in a barbed wire fence - an encounter that goes south really quickly.

I can't go past this point without including clues that point toward the twists that make up the rest of the movie.  It goes in a direction I wasn't expecting, and that's not a bad thing.  All I can say is that it's an interesting take on a somewhat familiar scenario.  Clues come in, but it keeps you guessing until the revelation kicks in.

Despite a couple slow spots, and they really weren't even that slow, I found the story engaging and had some fun trying to put the pieces together.  The acting was very good, especially from Copely.  He's never disappointed me, and he is great in this.  Josie Ho, who plays the mute woman who also can't communicate in English, takes the ball and runs with it.  She provides clues and emotional insight with facial expressions and body language, connecting us to the movie without a word.  The movie just plain looks good as well.  I wasn't much of a fan of López-Gallego's previous effort, Apollo 18.  It wasn't horrible, but just didn't mesh with me.  Open Grave was more my flavor, and I found it worth the money to rent it.

So, you think you've had it weird when you wake up in a place you don't recognize, make sure you still have your memories.  Until next time, dear readers, check out the trailer...

The Last Exorcism (2010) Sleight Of Hand, Magnified

You know when movies leave you with just enough to form your own interpretation, thereby making you mull over it for a while after you've shut off the TV, imagining hypothetical pathways down which the movie might have intended to go?

I like that.

I know there is a general "either you like it or you hate it" feeling about director Daniel Stamm and producer Eli Roth's The Last Exorcist out there - I've got friends who are steadfast in their opinion either way. That's fine. Everyone seemed to see something different. Even among those who liked it, there are varying viewpoints on what happened, what the movie meant, what the central theme may or may not have been. All I know is this: The Last Exorcist made me ponder what I had just seen long after I was done watching it, and for that, it earns points.

To give a full, blow-by-blow account as I often do would be to give away far too much. I do, however, want to offer my opinion on what I saw. To be honest, it's only one of my interpretations...but we'll get to that in a bit. First, allow me to give you some of the basics.

Reverend Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) is an ultra-charismatic preacher who's been groomed for the pulpit since he was a child. When he talks, people listen and testify, no matter what he says - proven in a hilarious little bit regarding a "banana bread sermon." He has a loving wife, an energetic deaf son, and a high standing in the community as a preacher and exorcist. There's a problem, though: Marcus has lost his faith. He's on a new crusade after discovering an exorcism's role in the death of a child, and he wants to expose exorcism as a "sham." The documentary crew is there to film him as he engages in his "last exorcism," so he can show step by step the ways in which he himself has scammed believers out of thousands of dollars.

He randomly chooses a handwritten cry for help out of a pile and takes the case of young Nell (Ashley Bell) in a backwoods Louisiana town. Marcus is met with instant hostility from Nell's brother Caleb, and fire-and-brimstone rhetoric and belief from Nell's father Louis (Louis Herthem). Marcus is slick, though. He gets the father to agree to film the exorcism and sets about earning Nell's trust. Through some sleight of hand, he causes the water Nell has her feet in to "boil," indicating a demon is indeed inside her and needs to come out.


Marcus performs the exorcism, and we are treated to parallel shots of how he will set the whole thing up to look authentic. You have to chuckle at the audacity, the creativity, the slickness, and the brass balls of the whole operation. After an emotional performance, Marcus proclaims Nell free, counts his money, and leaves for his motel.

From here, the movie takes one of its 90-degree turns.

Nell shows up at the motel, acting strangely. After a hospital visit, Marcus shows up again to find that Nell has sliced her brother in the face. The father, Louis, takes his other child to the hospital while Marcus and the film crew keep an eye on Nell.

You think Nell acting strangely before...

Nell gets downright scary here: staring, speaking in two voices, "drowning" a doll, even killing a cat with the camera as the crew sleeps. She remembers none of it, though. Marcus feels he's in over his head and believes she should have psychiatric treatment. Louis will have none of it, and after discovering that Nell is...shall we say...carrying more than a possible demon inside, demands - shotgun and all - that Marcus perform another exorcism.



Now, here is where I will tread carefully. I really don't want to give away anything to those who haven't seen the film. If you have seen it, bear with me. If you have NOT seen The Last Exorcism, I'm going to be VERY clear where the spoilers start and VERY clear when they end. OK? OK.

HERE THERE BE SPOILERS! BEYOND THIS POINT, IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN THIS MOVIE. THEREFORE, PLEASE DO NOT SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU THAT IMPORTANT, SPOILER-IFFIC PARTS OF THE MOVIE ARE ABOUT TO BE DISCUSSED:

Alright, are we clear? Good...let's continue.

You've seen the movie, you know how it ends as we see it: second exorcism seems to reveal that Nell wasn't possessed, but suffering from extreme shame from becoming pregnant despite the teachings of her zealous father. Everything seems like it will (eventually) be fine. The pastor from Nell's former church arrives to reconnect with the family. Marcus and the crew leave, meet the supposed father of Nell's baby, discover conflicting evidence, and return to find Nell and the others gone and Satanic symbols painted all over the house. Later, they stumble upon a dark ceremony where Nell is forced to give birth to a demon baby, which is thrown on a fire and "reborn." Marcus finds sudden resolve and faces down the demon while the film crew runs and is killed just as one of Nell's drawings foretold.

One interpretation is that we have seen exactly what we were intended to see. The story played out, no frills. That's the end, much like an old 70's demon versus man midnight movie. Check out the recent The House of the Devil for a more direct homage to that subgenre. Definitely a down note, but a common trait of that style.

Another interpretation is along the same lines, only with the added bonus that Nell was in on it the whole time, and everything leading Marcus to that end point was pre-ordained, whether through supernatural or clever man-made means. A footnote to that outlook is that maybe Marcus was meant to go there, guided not by demons but by God in order to win back his faith. "In order to believe in one, you have to believe in the other," Marcus says early in the film (and I'm probably paraphrasing - I don't have it on right now).

Now for an interpretation that I seem to gravitate to, and it's one of many that seem plausible. I thought it out, but that doesn't mean I'm the first person to get the idea. I'm sure someone had the idea before me. Here goes: I offer that not only was Nell in on it, but that Marcus orchestrated the entire thing from start to finish. Early in the movie, Marcus' wife tells us that he is heavily involved with community theater: writing plays, performing special effects, and other areas of it. We know Marcus is charismatic. People believe him. We also can see he likes magic tricks, as he uses them in his sermons and playing with his son. His whole exorcism act is based on magic tricks and sleight of hand. At every turn, Marcus is the central character, no matter what. Things are happening, but we are focused on him. That's sleight of hand carried out to a larger scale: focus on one thing, and something else is happening just out of your sight. What if everything was already meant to play out that way? What if Marcus wrote the community theater production of a lifetime, complete with the special effects he loved? While it can be argued as something supernatural guiding the path, from the random choosing of the assignment to Nell's prophetic drawings, it can also be argued that it was all written by Marcus himself to be that way.

I don't know. That's just my take on it. Take it or leave it as you will. And that's why I like the movie. It made me use my brain and, dare I say, my imagination.

OKAY, THIS IS WHERE THE SPOILERS END. DON'T SCROLL UP UNLESS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE WARNING IN THE SAME BOLD, CAPITAL LETTERS. FROM HERE ON OUT, IT'S SAFE TO READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE.

A few final thoughts about the movie: the direction by Daniel Stamm was excellent, building tension, making us familiar with the characters, maybe even engaging us in sleight of hand. The acting was great, but the performances by Patrick Fabian as Marcus, Ashley Bell as Nell, and Louis Herthum as Louis really stood out to me. They were believable, realistic characters. You feel and understand Marcus' inner turmoil, smile as Nell giggles, and have pity on Louis and his struggle to deal with family issues. And while the ending is a talking point, there were some parts of it that seemed overwrought, but that's really a small nitpick compared to how the rest of the film held up.

A movie about possession? The power of faith and belief, both good and bad? A preacher and his own inner demons? Perhaps something more? Maybe it's all those things, or another animal entirely.

Depends on what you believe.