Mike_T-Little_Mtn_Sound_Archive

Currently there are two other reviews for DEUS IRAE, and both authors did excellent jobs summing this movie to its whole. My take will not be much different, but will encapsulate several aspects not discussed.

As a fan of religiously themed movies that illustrate themes of demonology, good vs evil, satanic iconography, devils, and a good old fashioned exorcism, DEUS IRAE was a breath of fresh air on one hand, and a completely discombobulated piece of storytelling on the other. The film is super engaging and is more of an experience than it is a viewing, but the viewer is forewarned that the beginning is somewhat slow & confusing so it's important to watch intently and not miss the dialog. It's a bit of a mind-warp and has the potential to upset the applecart held on to by those who like their faith to be something safe. In other words, if you're easily offended by anti-christian rhetoric and/or "evil" iconography, you might want to sit this one out. I mean, how many films have a main character who is both a priest & a heroin addict? There are likely multiple levels of blasphemy that DEUS IRAE crosses, and let me just say that I'M HERE FOR IT!!!

Who are the DEUS IRAE? We have our lead actor, Pablo Ragoni, as Father Javier, teetering between madness and acceptance as he learns more about the demonic underbelly of the city, and as he experiences the consequences of becoming a DEUS IRAE. Gastón Ricaud's Father Marcos is the leader of the group and the prime example of what serving as the DEUS IRAE is and what it does to a person. We briefly see Agustin Rittano as Father Garbriel during Javier's hallucinatory spell. When they return as the Confessor it is one of the centerpieces of the whole film, rife with imagery that remained stuck in my brain from my very first viewings. And I will fully admit that I sort of fell under Sabrina Macchi's spell in this one, with a look reminiscent of Tilda Swinton if I'm to be so bold. There is a scene where she, as Sister Helena, rolls a cigarette from a page torn out from The Bible and I did not have an issue with it. I should have, obviously, but darn if I didn't want to take up smoking right there and then. I might just find religion again because of her. Helena's commitment to the cause is intense.

On the production side, the artistry in DEUS IRAE is second to none with amazing iconography, creating images that linger in the brain long after. Cristiani said in an interview that, "... the purpose of the film was to use the powerful visual and mythological role that Christianity has in the Latin American imaginary, and slowly pervert it". Oh it does. It does! The best thing that can happen to DEUS IRAE is that the Church catches on to it, gets offended by what they see, then starts yapping about it.

The film earns top marks for production design and the visual effects are in camera as much as possible. Puppetry plays a key role in demon seed portrayal. Creature and makeup effects are fully practical. And I've got to tip my hat to Pablo Isola's original music and scoring which drives into your brain like a sonic hammer. As soon as I finished my first viewing, I immediately attempted to locate a vinyl copy of the original score but had no luck. To this day I have not been able to determine whether a vinyl release (or any format for that matter) was issued. Rest assured...I will continue looking, as the adaptation of familiar plain chant as well as other compositions from various centuries is utilized in a brilliant way.

As impressive as this all looks, I have reminded myself that it took me a trio of viewings to sort of catch on to what Cristiani wanted to say. Is that to its detriment? That's subjective. Random jumps back & forth in time and into dreamscapes presented a challenge when watching it, as non-linear storytelling can be difficult to follow when done with English dialog, let alone when the spoken language is not English and any context gained comes from reading subtitles. I believe that may be part of what leaves viewers behind as the narrative moves forward. The to and fro scenes and images, mixed with trying to keep up with the story via subtitles... maybe I'm just making excuses and I'm too dumb to follow what is going on here, but I would say that at least 50% of what I watch are foreign films that utilize subtitles (dubbing just sucks). The disorienting nature of the narrative reflects Javier's own inability to grasp what they are experiencing. I felt the nightmarish, sensorial descent that Cristiani was planning on when making their movie which is why I coined this an experience rather than a viewing, in my first paragraph.

In the same interview as noted above, Cristiani states:

"... we follow the descent of Father Javier from his own point of view (that is why we use a non-linear narrative), as he experiences the consequences of becoming a DEUS IRAE. He starts losing his grip with reality, with his identity and even with his own sanity."

Then there is the ending. All I can say to this is that it is clear that Cristiani has more he wants to say about the DEUS IRAE after this movie. It is how they ended this first movie that left us... Well, I was really enjoying the ride up to that point, is all I can say. BUT...as it stands, I was disappointed in the ending. I'll leave it at that.

I feel that if you have ever been involved in the Church, any of the liturgical or orthodox denominations, especially the Catholic church that a lot of what you will see in DEUS IRAE is going to trigger a deeper response in you above a casual viewer who thinks that everything looks effing cool. For me, with my relationship to a faith community most of my life (my grandfather was a Christian minister), that was very much the case. It takes religious horror to levels of high artistry and imagery before dealing out punishing blows of violence and horror, which as I said, I'M TOTALLY HERE FOR! Some of it is completely random and will not make sense, and for the moment, I just have to trust that if Cristiani can continue sharing his vision that this randomness will make sense down the line (ie a sequel).

And now for the million dollar questions...would I recommend the film? And if so, who is its audience?

I would definitely recommend the film but certainly not to everybody. In fact, I wouldn't even blanketly state that all horror fans should watch it, as it takes ahold of more of a niche group...horror fans who gravitate to religiously themed films, with exorcism as a secondary byproduct theme. It's not that people who are unfamiliar with Christian iconography wouldn't "get it," but it's more fair to say that horror fans who have a basic yet general awareness & familiarity with Christian fables and the meaning of said iconography will have a much easier time identifying with what Cristiani is trying to say. It's not enough (in my opinion) to say that anyone who enjoys AMAZING practical FX should watch this, as there is more to it than that.

Lastly, I'm not sure if all copies are the same as mine, but the subtitles do not match the dialog for most of the film. I have seen much worse, but throughout the film, the subtitles come about 1.5-2 seconds after the dialog, often displaying while another character speaks. This is REALLY challenging and likely contributes to why I have watched & re-watched the film several times. As noted, I can't say with certainty that all copies or the streaming version contain such a flaw but be aware of this, as it forces the viewer to pay extremely close attention or risk missing important dialog.

For those curious about content, here's how I would rate things:

• Contains smoking and drug use (heroin via injection) in multiple scenes. An important part of the story is Father Javier's addiction. It is not hidden in any way, shape, or form.

• No nudity or sexual situations that I recall.

• Very limited profanity, if any. I can't recall any specific uses of profanity but if cursing is used it was done extremely sparingly.

• Intense & frightening scenes is always such a subjective category for IMDB, but in this case it is fair to say that DEUS IRAE is chock full of intense & frightening scenes, or at the very minimum, the intent. This film is in no way meant for children, and is likely inappropriate for anyone under 16. That said, I can't think of how a 16 year old would have any clue what is going on due to its non-linear telling and complex religious iconography.

• Violence & Gore! This is what most folks will want to know and I'm happy to say that there is a fair about of both. And body horror...oohhhh the body horror! In fact, there is probably more gore than there is violence, which is rare. The practical fx are so well done that it's difficult to distance one's self from what is onscreen. Quite frankly the best way to describe the gore would be to imagine the sci-fi love child of David's Lynch and Cronenberg. Just wonderful & copious amounts of blood, viscera, and strange creatures permeate the film from the inside out, leaving the viewer to contemplate and/or to relate to the lovely displays of Cronenbergesque body horror.

Happy viewing!

Quite honestly these days, it is rare that I don't enjoy a film or a good documentary. But this doc really confused me. Not because of the content but in terms of audience. Did the creators want it to be a climbing doc? A nature doc? Tourism? Travel? All of them? Well, while I'm still not exactly sure who it was made for, I can tell you who it was NOT made for, and that's climbers/mountaineers. If you're like me then you know there are simply not enough high altitude mountaineering films & docs, but if that's why you've come here, don't bother. This is not a climbing film...not even a little. That leaves tourist, travel, or nature, at which point I would say they're all fairly similar so the answer is yes.

For the most part, the film is decent enough with regards to production, but for a doc that is 53 minutes long, they simply tried doing to much. It opens with some basic info about Everest then jumps immediately to the 1953 first summit and spends 10-15 minutes giving this somewhat non-linear climbing history. There is nothing unique or new to this portion as it is all stock footage and old film clips from the first ascent. From here it bounces back to the natural aspects of Everest and discusses some of the scientific facts behind the age of the mountain as well as weather patterns, surrounding geography & populations, and the Nepalese culture in general. The rest of the doc is a random, disjointed telling of what Everest is and why it's become popular.

From this point to the end it is a mishmash of all of the above, bouncing back and forth between all the sub-topics mentioned. There is no rhyme or reason as to what is being told, and actually, it's as if the creators were told to "make a doc about Everest that's 50 minutes long and tells us everything about it."

The last 35 minutes or so is this same continued mishmash of the above but including cuts of old TV interviews with climbers. Sadly, the directors didn't even see fit to include the names of people being interviewed or people spoken to about Everest. On top of that, the picture quality bounces back and forth from 1080i to what almost looks like 64-bit Atari games. It's terrible, quite honestly...like they don't even try making it worth while. On top of that, there are many repeated portions. As an example, clips from the 1953 ascent were replayed at least three times through during the doc. The same with some of the stock footage. I mean, come on! It's only 50 minutes...you couldn't make that 50 minutes of original material so you had to repeat multiple clips numerous times? In fact, many little clips of climbers aren't even on Everest! Not even in Nepal...well heck...not even in Asia!!! I suppose for those who aren't obsessed with the mountain they probably wouldn't know this. Still, it's very disappointing. Thankfully, there are a handful of really nice sweeping shots that show the mountain in all its splendor, which for climbers who love the big ultras is always nice.

Look...it's nice to see Everest. There could never be enough content of 8000m peaks to satisfy we who climb, but this was a complete and total disappointment. Off the top of my head I can't think of anybody who I would recommend this to, as there are dozens of better documentaries about Everest. Actually they almost all are better than this one, so in my opinion don't waste your time or money.

I'll keep this on the brief side as there are other detailed reviews, but for the most part I agree in & with those positive reviews. Any review that TRASHES this movie is disingenuous since the plot is spelled out in the summary, the acting is extremely well done, average but capable script, the budget was big enough for anything they needed to do, and the overall production is on par with any other medium sized Hollywood production. I can see why some might rate it as average or that it did not live up to expectations or what it could have been (ie potential), but to trash it is a difficult sell. At the very least, it could be considered average all the way up to 10/10.

For my other opinions, I would say the following things:

• I found the sound to be terrible, though to be fair, I can't say whether it is the film or my TV (though I don't have the issues I had with this film when watching others). The music and action sequences are EXTREMELY HOT, whereas the dialog-only portions are low. As an example, dialog-only portions, especially those displaying scenes of whispering, compared to action sequences are reduced by a factor of 50%...ie had to double my TV volume in order to hear the dialog but when action scenes run I had to cut the volume in half. I love watching films on high volume, but the dialog is soooooo much lower that it means constantly turning up, turning down, turning up, turning down, rinse & repeat. That gets frustrating.

• A film which has a run time of 2.25 hours is not something to be taken lightly. While 80-90 minutes would have been too short for the story the writer wished to tell, two and a quarter hours felt too long. There is too much action to categorize this solely as a drama film, but there is not enough action to solely label it as such. The length provides for plenty of time to develop "attachments" to the protagonist(s), but there were times that I felt the film dragged a little. Maybe a better way to say it is that the time between action scenes was often lengthy.

• which brings me to the amount of action contained. Considering this is supposed to be an action film, there is not much to speak of. I did not count the number of sequences present, but I would estimate only 4 or 5. That isn't many considering the run time and that it is billed as an action movie. Secondarily, with the main character supposedly a Jiu Jitsu and non-lethal defense expert I had really hoped to see some great non-lethal sequences; I think there were only two very short instances when he utilizes that training. I think this misses the mark, especially considering it is categorized as an action film. Not only do we not see much in the way of his "specialty" techniques but when we do, it is quick and not filmed from an angle that truly exemplifies the techniques. I suppose that is done intentionally.

• lastly, one of my hopes for this film was to see some decent carnage. I know...I know...I'm depraved, and why would anybody want that? BECAUSE I LOVE MOVIE CARNAGE! Even the fights were tame in this. In fact, there was so little blood in the movie that I thought maybe Disney bought stock in it or something. But seriously...when you combine that with the limited number of action and fight sequences, it makes for a relatively tame movie. I've seen PG-13 movies with more in the way of these characteristics, so if you're looking for a killer fight film with lots of good blood & carnage in general, stick with something like "Polar" as you won't find it here. To be fair, that doesn't make this a bad flick but it's important as part of a review, especially since I know there are folks out there who look at reviews specifically to see how violently and/or gory a film is - I'm one of those folks.

Regarding other "stuff," it goes like this:

• no nudity or sexual situations of any kind
• a fair amount of profanity
• there is no visible drug use but there is some implied use

I would say that this film would appeal to fans of dramatic action. There are definitely social themes that run throughout the movie:

• race relations & racism
• political & civil service corruption

Etc.