Anyone going to watch this? I know Clive Barker's name is smeared all over it, but that ain't saying much (Barker crashed and burned for me early when noticed that everything he wrote was the same, except the monster looked different and sex and boobie shows just doesn't hold my interest the way they used to, marriage can do that to a man). Sex demons hop through time to suck the life outta men and birth demons, the Church (led by William - the Cigarette Smoking Man - B. Davis) sends some Fallen Stud (was he, uh, SEXUALLY tempted) to go and kill them before they contaminate the future.
The previews look okay, but they show the same footage again and again and, please note, next to no dialogue sequences (save for Davis's examplaining the racy footage). This is a Sci-Fi Channel Picture, which means it'll be about 75 minutes long and feature 45 minutes of commercials.
Yeah, I'll probably bite. But:
"Although Rome officially broke ties with Tomas' Order years earlier, the Holy See privately recognizes that the Order's ongoing mission is vital:"
Um, doesn't that mean Tomas' Order has been excommunicated???
"After centuries of imprisonment, evil is let loose upon the world to wreak deadly havoc" Shouldn't that be AN evil? Or everything had been hunky-dory up until 1815?? No Salem witch trials, no wars, no disease . . .
"Tomas finally convinces Rachel Dressler, a no-nonsense police detective, that he holds the key to stopping the gruesome rampage." Ah, yea. 'Ms. No-nonsense Detective, I'm a monk from two hundred years ago sent into the future to chase demons. I am not a mental patient' 'Oh, o.k., that sounds reasonable.'
It should be entertaining, just to see how they explain away those plot holes.
Yeah, I'll probably bite. But: "Although Rome officially broke ties with Tomas' Order years earlier, the Holy See privately recognizes that the Order's ongoing mission is vital:" Um, doesn't that mean Tomas' Order has been excommunicated???
***** An organization cannot be excommunicated, only people can. I say this as a Catholic who knows a little about these technicalities but also one who has no idea what this is about. The line may mean that the church stopped funding or aiding the order.
Dano wrote:
> ***** An organization cannot be excommunicated, only people
> can. I say this as a Catholic who knows a little about these
> technicalities but also one who has no idea what this is
> about. The line may mean that the church stopped funding or
> aiding the order.
But if the work they do is so vital, why would their funding be cut? Also, the title of this film got me thinking: does any here remember when Mr. Barker worked for Marvel on his own line of comics? As I recall, one of them was called...Saint Sinner. and it was about a teen who had both a angel and a demon inside him. I think, does anyone remember this? I don't think it lasted a year, but I could be wrong.
D
D wrote:
> Also, the title of this film got me thinking: does
> any here remember when Mr. Barker worked for Marvel on his
> own line of comics? As I recall, one of them was
> called...Saint Sinner. and it was about a teen who had both a
> angel and a demon inside him. I think, does anyone remember
> this? I don't think it lasted a year, but I could be wrong.
> D
Yup, I was wondering if the two were connected. Doesn't sound like it from your recollections though. Maybe they just liked the title and ran with it.
I forget the name of that comic line, but it was somewhat in response to DC's then newly-formed Vertigo line. Of course, you cut out quality and hope to coast on someone's name. Other than the original ideas, Barker had next to nothing to do with the comics. The line did crash and burn very fast.
Speaking of Barker, new Hellraiser movie out today.
Used to like Barker's fiction, but I had to give up soon. I still enjoy his short tales and I think they are really good, merging sex and horror in quite a provocative fashion, but I found his novels pretty messy. About Barker as a filmmaker, I think he should retire. Last movie I saw directed by the man himself was "Lord of illusions", and I couldn't be more dissapointed. It is based on one of his most interesting short stories, but it is incredibly conventional and boring.
But if the work they do is so vital, why would their funding be cut?
Breaking of 'offical relationships' can be mostly a public-relations move and does not always entail cutting of all ties, funding, etc..
Thanks for the clarification.