“A Supernatural Thriller.”
|
|
|
Renée Zellweger is one of those Hollywood stars who is nauseatingly
sweet. Butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth. With her pudgy, puckered
face and miniscule frame, Zellweger looks rough enough to be a ranch
hand yet elegant enough to wear Versace. One might say she’s a
chameleon actor, a term often used to describe the greatest living
American actress, Meryl Streep. That might be blowing too much
smoke up her narrow arse, but she can certainly play the proverbial
damsel in distress because in Case 39, her first official starring role in a
horror film, she does it with her eyes closed.
It’s a pity the film was a formulaic pile of Hollywood poo...
Case 39 shares similar ideas to The Exorcist, The Omen, and most
recently, Orphan. They’ve unofficially been dubbed ‘evil kid’ films, a
supernatural sub-genre that also includes the likes of Don’t Look Now,
Rosemary’s Baby, and lesser known films like Darkness and The
Unborn. So, where does Case 39 fit in? Definitely not in the same
league as Friedkin’s, Donner’s, Roeg’s, or Polanski’s films.
Zellweger plays a disillusioned social worker who believes that her
trivial efforts aren’t satisfactorily serving the needs of her clients.
When we first get a glimpse of Emily Jenkins, she’s swamped with
cases and fed up with the system that’s paying her wages. One day
her boss drops a file onto her desk and reluctantly, she takes on the
case.
|
| |
|
|
Lillith Sullivan is a 10 year old girl whose parents are accused of
abusing her. When Jenkins visits the family home, the parents are
withdrawn, solemn. There’s every indication that something is going
on, but whatever it is, she’ll have to find out the hard way. It’s only
after her parents try to incinerate Lillith in the oven that Jenkins
champions to be her guardian, and once Lillith moves into Jenkins’
house, all Hell, literally breaks loose.
I’d read good things about German director Christian Alvart’s 2005
debut feature, Antibodies, which, like everything these days, is
getting a damned Hollywood remake. Hell, maybe the studios will even
recruit him to do a shot-for-shot remake á la Michael Haneke. Even
though I haven’t seen Antibodies, I kind of expected something fresh,
something visionary going into Case 39, even though the studio had
Alvart by the nuts.
Apart from being suitably atmospheric, Case 39 is just your run of the
mill studio horror film. There’s nothing here that hasn’t been said or
done before, and that’s what makes it just another generic, ordinary,
typical star-driven vehicle. Did I mention totally illogical? Even in the
realm of the supernatural, Case 39 fails to convincingly tie up its loose
ends. The ending will leave you scratching your head, and not in a
good way.
The thing I detest about Hollywood is not merely the fact that they
love to exploit the talents of European directors - who are willing to
sacrifice their craft for a meaty salary, of course – but the fact that
there are too many guidelines that prohibit the course for intuitive
expression. The material is regulated and safe, the productions are
lavish and polished, there’s always a star involved who’s demanding
1/4 of the budget, and the story is rigidly structured with a distinct
beginning, middle, and end.
Yawn!!!
|
| |
|
|
There’s no room for spontaneity or risk. It’s all about how the film
fares at the box office. That’s how success is measured, and that’s
what the suits have done with Alvart and Case 39. They’ve produced a
venture that is starved of structural, narrative, and thematic
flexibility, and those are the features that constitute an innovative
film.
Zellweger and child actress, Jodelle Ferland (Terry Gilliam’s Tideland),
do an adequate job onscreen, but none of it is really outstanding.
Ferland is undoubtedly well cast. She’s got the face and mannerisms of
a 50 year old woman, lending a freakish air to the role. Plus her scenes
alongside Zellweger are performed with relative complexity. Ian
McShane, on the other hand, is a standout. Whenever he’s in a scene,
you’re constantly fixed upon him and his husky drawl. It’s a brilliant if
nonchalant performance.
Case 39 is a polished, uninspired, and at times irrational horror flick,
typical of the pap that Hollywood’s been dishing out over the last 20
odd years. The fact that it’s got a supernatural stance gives it a slight
edge over others that are rooted in the mechanics of the real world.
Everything is capably achieved, from the production itself right down
to the script. However, these are the issues that make the film, for
me, too straightforward and ordinary. Case 39 will definitely garner an
audience, and it’ll probably earn enough at the box office to reap back
its 27 million budget, either through ticket or DVD sales. Overall, Case
39 is barely passable.
|
|
