House of the Dead | Through the Shattered Lens

You know things are going to be bad when the 2003 video game adaptation House of the Dead opens with a lengthy narration in which we’re told exactly who is going to die in the film and who is going to live. Narration is usually a bad sign, in general. Narration that gives away a huge chunk of the plot during the opening five minutes is even worse.

Things get worse when we’re told that a bunch of college students need to find a boat so that they can attend the “rave of the century,” which is being held on an isolated island. (The island, by the way, is known as the Island of the Dead but no one seems to be that concerned by the name.) From what we see of the greatest rave of all time, it apparently involves one stage, two speakers, and exactly 8 people dancing. The dancers are often shot in slow motion, which I guess is meant to make them look like they’re having more fun than they actually are. Myself, I’m wondering why anyone would hold the “rave of the century” on an island that no one can find. According to the banner above the stage, the whole thing is being sponsored by Sega, the company behind the House of the Dead video game that gave this movie its name.

Things quickly go downhill once the zombies show up and start killing everyone. It doesn’t take long for most of the disposable characters to get killed. The majority of the film is made up of people either running through the forest or hiding in a house or a boat. Because none of the characters really have any personality, you’re never quite sure who anyone is. Their deaths don’t really register because it never seems as if they were living to begin with. Watching the film, it’s hard not to feel that everyone on the island is a member of the living dead. It’s just that some of them haven’t realized it yet.

As mentioned above, House of the Dead is based on a video game and, frequently, the action is punctuated with heavily pixelated scenes that have been lifted straight from the game. On the one hand, you have to admire the film for being honest about what it is. On the other hand, you have to regret that the film itself is never as much fun as the game probably is.

House of the Dead was one of several video game adaptations that German director Uwe Boll was responsible for in the early aughts. Up until he retired from the film industry, it was regularly argued by online film critics that Boll was the world’s worst director. Boll responded to the criticism by challenging his most vehement critics to a boxing match. A few of the critics accepted the challenge and Boll actually did fight them, knocking all of them out. I imagine that’s probably every filmmaker’s secret fantasy.

Myself, I will say that I don’t think Boll is the worst director in the world. He’s not particularly good but there are worst directors out there. That said, House of the Dead is pretty bad. The dialogue is leaden, the characters are bland, and even the intentional attempts at humor fall flat. Seventeen years after it was first released, it still pretty much represents the nadir of video game adaptations.

Anyway, the main lesson of this film is …. well, I don’t think there really is a lesson to be found, other than that it might be a good idea to take names seriously. I mean, Island of the Dead? Can anyone really be surprised that the zombies showed up?

Last night, me, Jeff, and my sister Erin braved the melting ice and snow in order to drive out to the AMC Valley View and see The Rite, which is the latest movie to come out about exorcism.

(Quick sidenote: Yes, the AMC Valley View has replaced the closed Regal Keystone as my place to see mainstream, establishment films. It’s actually a pretty nice little theater and it’s located in Valley View Mall so, at the very least, you can do some shopping before you see your film. Add to that, I think I’ve developed a girlcrush on the girl who always sells us our tickets because she’s 1) something like 6 feet tall and 2) she just gives off this really sarcastic, monotone, I-don’t-give-a-fuck vibe. Oh! And they’ve also got that old House of the Dead video game in the lobby and last night, Erin played it and Jeff and I were laughing so hard because she just started shooting everything! That said, the theater doesn’t do matinee showing and oh my God, I hate the drive up there because it means having to cross Coit road and once you get pass Coit, nobody knows how to drive. Bleh. But anyway….)

The Rite begins with those dreaded words: “The following is based on true events.” We then meet Michael Kovak (played by Colin O’Donoghue) who is the son of a mortician who lies about wanting to be a priest so he can get a scholarship to the seminary and get a college degree in psychology. His plan, of course, is to get the degree and then resign from the deaconate before actually taking his vows. However, when he attempts to resign, the Father Superior refuses to accept the resignation. He also refuses to accept Michael’s claim of having no faith in God. Instead, he convinces Michael to go to Rome and to take a class on exorcism. The theory here — and it’s the same theory that seems to crop up in every film ever made about exorcism — is that if you can see proof of the devil then therefore, you’re seeing proof of God because one can’t exist without the other. Some people would call that wishful thinking but regardless, Michael goes to Rome and who wouldn’t? Rome is full of old buildings, beautiful people, stray cats, great food, and romantic possibilities, after all.

Rome is also the home of Father Lukas (played by Anthony Hopkins) who is a veteran exorcist. When Michael expresses some doubts in Exorcism Class, he’s sent to learn from Lukas. Michael watches as Lukas performs several exorcisms and yet, he still refuses to believe that any of it is real. Even when the possessed start to spit up Holy Nails and pieces of the One True Cross, Michael continues to argue that it’s all a psychological condition. But then, Michael starts to have disturbing visions of his father (played by Rutger Hauer) and Lukas starts to act strangely and Michael comes to realize that, regardless of whether he believes in the devil, the devil certainly believes in him.

The Rite actually has a few things to recommend it. The scenes in Rome are shot to emphasize the eerie atmosphere over easy shocks and, as a result, the film creates a sense of unease that is so subtle that the viewer is almost seduced into sharing the film’s Manichean world view. Anthony Hopkins is always fun to watch on-screen and he knows exactly how much over-the-top to go in his performance without descending to the level of camp.

Unfortunately, director Mikael Hafstrom never quite manages to settle on the correct pace for the film. Some scenes are over much too quickly while others seem to just drag on for an eternity. It seems to take forever for Michael just to get over to Rome and even once he does arrive in Italy, you’re never sure of how long he’s supposed to be there, how long he’s already been there, or how many days pass between his first meeting with Hopkins and the end of the film.

The film’s other big flaw, along with the slow pace, is the character of Michael or, more specifically, Colin O’Donoghue’s passively blank performance as Michael. Since the film is essentially meant to be about Michael’s struggle with belief, it would be good if the film’s star was capable of suggesting some sort of inner emotional life. Instead, O’Donoghue simply comes across as a block of wood that’s been whittled into the shape of a man. As a result, Micheal never seems to be a man in the throes of a crisis of faith. Instead, he just seems petulant. Anthony Hopkins is so dynamic and O’Donoghue so bland that you actually resent O’Donoghue for having more screen time.

Director Mikael Hafstrom deserves some credit for trying to make a “serious” movie about exorcism but, to be honest, I prefer the more unapologetically sordid approach of a film like The Last Exorcism. Ultimately, The Rite tries so hard to be serious that it forgets to be entertaining.