Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

misticnoa I've been looking forward to take a look at this film ever since I've heard it has been released. It has been difficult to find, though. Many years ago, I have seen a Serbian film "Sveto mesto" ("Holy Ground") which turned out to be fairly good and which I later found out to be based on Gogolj's "Vij". It was one of those rare occasions in which an adaptation is perhaps even better than the story that originated it. It remained one of my most favourite childhood films ever since. When I heard of the Russian version a few years ago I thought it must be even better. I was first taken aback by such a low rating of 3! After I've seen the film and read the comment I pretty much understood why something like this had happened, as the film itself, viewed from the angle of an independent viewer, not concerned with Gogolj's story, or not knowing the background or caring about it, is not the greatest horror film ever, not even a good one at all. The point is this hasn't been made to be a typical horror flick in the first place. It also wasn't meant to scare. It is simply a slightly different version of a classic story we all know, with good special effects that add a lot to the atmosphere. And I also disagree that it was about finding identity or anything like that. It's a folklore story about witches. The scenography is the most beautiful thing about this film. The camera work has also done a very good job. The actors, to be honest, haven't had much chance to show off throughout the film. The story should be out of discussion as we all know what is it all about. The original story is slightly altered as the priest is transformed into a journalist who encounters a priest and after some unfortunate incidents assumes his identity. And so what if it's being situated in an American town doesn't seem realistic? Personally, I don't think that makes any difference. While I watched it, I didn't give much thought to where it all happens, whether in America or rural France. I agree about the bad English subtitles, and I've also read comments about bad dubbing- My opinion about dubbing is that ANY DUBBING IS BAD DUBBING. Besides, it's for lazy people who can't even bother to read the subs. I don't get that. The film could have been a lot better I agree on that. But I also think it wasn't all that horrible after all.

dbborroughs Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" has been filmed again and released to home video in the US via Faith Films.The original story concerns a priest who has to watch over the body of a witch with only his faith to protect him. Greatly expanded and set in America, though clearly filmed in Russia (the houses,clothing and furnishing are all wrong despite the English signs), this is an odd film that doesn't really work.Part of it is the weird setting that tries very hard to be backwoods America but clearly isn't.There are also some weird, intentionally oblique moments as the main character being a reporter at the start and a priest a short time later. I'm not sure why they did that, even after watching the making of piece on the DVD) The other problem is the dubbing which is beyond awful. Its done in such away that everyone speaks when their lips are not on camera- or if they are the voices don't even remotely match the lip flaps. I don't know if its Faith Films fault or that of the producers who made the film hoping to dump into the West (revealed in the making of piece).The film isn't very good. As I've said it has all sorts of technical issues that just make this an odd ball curio. Despite some really good looking horror images the film never works as a horror film. As film to engender faith its much too confused in this retelling to amount to make anyone feel anyone closer to god.Given the choice I'd give it a pass, even at a bargain bin price. My advice would be to find the 1960's version of the tale called Viy which will bring both some shivers and some understanding about a belief in god.

joemamaohio Ivan (Valeri Nikolayev) is a bitter, cynical journalist who investigates the unexplained. He travels to this small town where it's said that a witch (Ita Ever) is terrorizing the community.His car stalls and he takes refuge in a small building, and meets a beautiful, mysterious girl. Suddenly she turns into a demon and he kills her, and the town is wondering who murdered this woman...who I guess was the witch but I am not entirely sure. Ivan is now being pursued by her spirit, or something, and he has to have faith, or something, to beat it.I really hate Christian films. They are usually filled with lame actors, stupid storyline and minimal effects. Not to mention that this isn't just a Christian film...but a foreign one as well. The voice-over actor for Ivan made the movie more comical than terrorizing, because it is so high pitched and whiny. You won't miss much by missing out on this film.

Fredegonde POSSIBLY VERY MINOR SPOILERSThis movie is billed as the first Russian horror movie. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, "The Witch" (its Russian title) will take a place of dishonor in the gallery of horrible Russian movies. It is based on Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" which is a classic in Russia. "Based" is the key word here since no familiarity with the story is required. Instead, the less you know about Gogol, the better. It is a unique production because we are quite used to directors taking stories from other cultures and adapting them to their own culture. The spate of American remakes of foreign films is a prime example, but then again, Sturgess turned Kurosawa's Seven Samurai into The Magnificent Seven with splendid results, and Kurosawa transferred Shakespeare's Macbeth into Japan to make an incredibly powerful Throne in Blood, while King Lear became a riveting Ran. However, with "The Witch," we have Russians transplanting a Russian classical tale onto the American soil. The movie was shot in Estonia in English with the aim of dubbing it into English using American actors and have reasonably synchronous lip movements. As a natural consequence, lost is the colorful Ukrainian background for the story, in comes a drab American small town seemingly lifted from some outdated horror book manual. Gone is the boozy seminarian Khoma Brutus, instead we have a boozy journalist who is about to win Pullitzer prize, and who at the same time writes about X-Files-like events and frequents Miss Boobs contests. (I never thought Pullitzer prize was given for that kind of writing, now I humbly stand corrected.) In a strange nod to Russianness, the journalist is named Ivan Berkhoff. They should've named him John Smith because it is impossible to get more hackneyed, clichéd and generic than this movie. Berkhoff goes to a town named Castleville, gets stranded on a dirt road, staggers on until he finds a dilapidated house and is rather un-welcomed by an old crone. All that to the accompaniment of a radio announcement about the forces of evil being at their most powerful, and people better staying indoors and avoiding water. Need I mention that it's raining really hard? After a few supposedly frightening scenes which had me laughing, the story finds our journalist dressed as a priest, he's mistaken for a priest, and the local sheriff tells him his daughter who died after being brutally attacked wanted the new priest to pray for her for three nights. At this point, the action supposedly starts. Those who have time to kill are welcome to it. What is wrong with this film? Everything, starting with the dialog and down to the prop department. The dialog which I heard in Russian was clearly originally written in English, and it was compiled exclusively from clichés and platitudes picked from American films. The actors just as clearly struggled with English because the timing of their speech was labored and unnatural, and the Russian dubbing followed suit. The acting is mostly atrocious, and not only because the actors find it often difficult to talk but because they don't have anything approaching a range of facial expressions. For the most part, they're just blank or you wish they were. The only exceptions being the sheriff played by Lembit Ulfsak, a fine Estonian actor, and Arnis Lizitis who plays a wheelchair bound resident of Castleville. Oh, and a rooster of course who's absolutely natural on camera! I know actors complain of being upstaged by dogs and cats but when Nikolaev is upstaged by a rooster it is a sad testimony to the general quality of acting in the film.There wasn't a single scary moment in the entire film, and there wasn't a single original moment in the film either. Mind you, this comment's coming from somebody who's rather inexperienced with horror. The film is filled with standard moves used in horror movie since the genre's inception. At a critical moment, the camera lingers lovingly on a kerosene lamp. The lamp promptly goes out. It must have seen a few horror movies, too. An example of supreme idiocy comes at another moment, a character jumps out of a bathtub and runs at the camera. He's wearing something the looks like loincloth! It doesn't get any more idiotic than this!Those in Russia who liked it claim it should've been advertised as a mystical thriller. I wasn't thrilled either. It was run-of-the-mill from start to finish. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the entire population of the little town behaved as if they knew exactly they lived in a horror movie, except they weren't quite sure whether it had zombies or not. Therefore, some of them acted zombie-like just in case. The makers of the film say it's about finding faith. Such a fine collections of idiotic actions, stupidly contrived moments, and, yes, clichés, doesn't deserve to be about finding faith. The movie is so thoroughly and utterly fake it deserves only to be an exhibit in a wax figure museum.