Movie reviews: 'The Last Voyage of the Demeter' is an old-fashioned fright fest

THE LAST VOYAGE OF THE DEMETER: 3 ½ STARS

 

“The Last Voyage of the Demeter,” a new horror film now playing in theatres, is based on the chapter "The Captain's Log" from Bram Stoker's novel “Dracula.” Told through news clippings and notes from the captain’s log of the Demeter, the chapter details the horrifying voyage that brought Count Dracula to England.

Haven’t read the book? Then think of it as “Alien” on the high seas. A claustrophobic nineteenth century thriller, it swaps out the commercial space tug Nostromo and Xenomorph creature for the merchant ship Demeter and the most famous vampire of all time.

Set in 1897, the story begins when the Demeter is chartered to carry fifty mysterious, unmarked wooden crates, contents unknown, from Eastern Europe to England.

“Our charter has agreed to pay a bonus for timely arrival in London,” says Captain Eliot (Liam Cunningham).

The bonus pay will be hard earned by the crew… if there is any crew left by the time they hit dry land.

When someone or something begins attacking the on-board livestock at night, rumors fly amongst the crew.

“Evil is onboard,” says Olgareen (Stefan Kapicic). “Powerful evil.”

That evil comes in the form of Dracula (Javier Botet), a 400-year-old aristocratic vampire who feeds on the crew, killing them one by one, to regain his full powers.

“The thing wears the skin of a man,” says stowaway Anna (Aisling Franciosi). “In the night it drinks our blood, and he is on the ship. Which means we will never leave it.”

“The Last Voyage of the Demeter” isn’t exactly Dracula’s story. We get some of the usual vampire lore, and he is certainly a presence, but this is the story of the crew fighting against a great unknown. Director André Øvredal takes his time introducing the characters and setting up the situation on the ship before the first kill. Then, he builds tension slowly, shrouding the screen in fog and dark shadows where strange things just might be lurking. When the carnage begins, Øvredal keeps the bloodsucker mostly out of sight, hidden in corners, shot in tight close-ups, building anticipation for the eventual monstrous reveal.

It's a nice twist on the usual Dracula movie. It eschews the Bela Lugosi vampire model in favor of a more rough-hewn, demonic aesthetic, like Nosferatu, with needle teeth and wings. They rid him of any of the hypnotic charm he may have had in the hands of Lugosi or Christopher Lee. In this film, he is evil incarnate, as though sprung from the deepest, darkest regions of the human imagination.

“The Last Voyage of the Demeter” conjures up its scares with practical effects, with very little CGI or green screen work. Built of tension and fear, it makes for an old-fashioned fright fest, one more interested in simple, old-school scares than heavy special effects driven terror. It’s a little heavy handed in its final moments, as it attempts to set up a sequel, but if the next one is as elemental and frightening as this one, I’m in.

HEART OF STONE: 3 STARS

 

The 2023 worry-of-the-week, that artificial intelligence (AI) will grow so powerful it will soon be controlling our lives, is kicked up a notch or two in “Heart of Stone,” the new Gal Gadot high tech thriller now streaming on Netflix.

Gadot is Rachel Stone, a computer tech/operative for a super-secret peacekeeping group called The Charter.

“When governments fail, the only thing left is the Charter.” They are a specialized unit of “the most highly trained agents with no political leanings, no national allegiances, working together to keep peace in a turbulent world.”

Helping them to police humanity is a powerful AI program called the Heart.

“If you own the Heart,” says MI6 agent Parker (Jamie Dornan), “you own the world.” It’s a vital organ, the most advanced AI program on earth, capable of scrutinizing and evaluating all human data, finding patterns and using those results to make predictions of future global threats.

“The Heart is knowledge and power. It can crash a market or drop a plane out of the sky. Who needs to steal a nuclear bomb when you can control them all?” says Parker.

In the wrong hands a program that formidable, with the totality of human knowledge, could destabilize the world, which is exactly what mastermind hacker Keya Dhawan (Bollywood superstar Alia Bhatt) has in mind.

“Now you will answer to me,” she taunts like a good movie villain should.

Cue the globetrotting mission to stop Dhawan from stealing the Charter’s Heart.

Directed by Tom “Peaky Blinders” Harper, “Heart of Stone” is a big, slick story of international intrigue that works best when it is in motion. When Godot is flying through the air on a skidoo or going one-on-one with the baddies, it zips along like a 90s era 007 movie. That means loads of high-tech nonsense, flamboyant characters, a dastardly villain, international intrigue, a propulsive soundtrack and, of course, outlandish action.

But when the characters speak, and they speak quite a lot, the 007ness of it all reduces to a jumble of B movie spy clichés. It looks good, but speaks in the language of truisms. In other words, been there, done that.

Cinematographer George Steel shoots for the big screen, and has an eye for action. The location work—including the now obligatory chase scene through the cobble streets of a European city—gives the movie an up-market sheen, but don’t be fooled, this is an expensive knockoff, a Canal Street copy of other, better spy movies.

“Heart of Stone” did not warm my heart.

SATAN WANTS YOU: 3 ½ STARS

 

In the early 1980s it seemed the Devil was lurking around every corner. Parents, concerned that heavy metal was bringing their kids over to the dark side, played records backwards, searching for hidden diabolical messages. Rumors circulated that a major toothpaste brand had secret satanic messages embedded into their logo and sordid tales of human sacrifices, incestuous orgies and ritual abuse at the hands of Devil worshippers were guaranteed ratings gold for afternoon talk shows.

Ground Zero for the satanic panic was “Michelle Remembers,” a bestselling memoir co-written by Victoria, B.C. based psychiatrist Lawrence Pazder and Michelle Smith, his long-term patient and future wife. The book, and the resulting reverberations caused by its allegations, are the subject of “Satan Wants You,” a new documentary now playing in theatres.

Based on Smith’s “repressed memories,” the book details lurid and often absurd claims of child abuse she says she suffered at the hands of a cabal of satanists led by her mother Virginia Proby. As the book gained popularity, with excerpts in People and the National Enquirer, Pazder and Smith became media celebrities, spreading the now debunked message that satanists lurked everywhere, and no one was safe from their devilish grasp. Despite no actual evidence of satanic activity—Smith claims the Virgin Mary visited her and removed scars and other signs of abuse—their sensational claims got a hold in the zeitgeist.

Directors Sean Horlor and Steve J. Adams methodically work their way through the story and misinformation, supported by audio recordings of Smith’s unsettling hypnotherapy sessions with Pazder, cheesy reenactments, loads of archival footage and new interviews with family and friends of the main characters. What emerges is a portrait not only of a conspiracy and moral panic spun out of control, and lapped up by an eager media, but also of the exploitive relationship between the doctor and patient.

The film’s focus on that aspect of the story gives the larger picture a bit of a short shrift. The panic caused by “Michelle Remembers” ruined the reputations of falsely accused people and cost others a fortune defending themselves in costly court trials.

Instead, the film forges a connection between the 1980s satanic frenzy and the recent conspiracy theories promoted by QAnon. In the world of misinformation, the film suggests, everything old is new again.

“Satan Wants You” is a time capsule of 1980s moral outrage, but more than that, it demonstrates how quickly and easily misinformation can cause an epidemic of mass hysteria.

PASSAGES: 3 ½ STARS

 

“Passages,” a new Paris-set erotic relationship drama from director Ira Sachs, now playing in theatres, is the story of an intolerable narcissist made tolerable by the lead performance from Franz Rogowski.

German actor Rogowski plays Tomas, a self-involved filmmaker fresh off the set of his latest movie. Controlling and uncompromising, his marriage to long-time partner Martin (Ben Whishaw) is beginning to fray around the edges. At the wrap party for the film, Martin doesn’t feel like dancing, so Tomas hits the floor with Agatha (Adèle Exarchopoulos). They dance, they flirt and spend the night together.

The next morning, Tomas returns home to an understandably upset Martin.

“I had sex with a woman,” Tomas says. “Can I tell you about it?” Martin is unenthusiastic as Tomas describes his “exciting” night with Agatha.

Martin writes off the one-night stand as Tomas blowing off some steam. “This always happens when you finish a film,” he says, but their bond unravels further as Tomas becomes smitten with Agatha. He quickly moves in with her, leaving Martin high and dry.

When Agatha announces she is pregnant, Tomas feels the weight of his actions.

“Passages” is a study of toxic behavior. Tomas is brusque, unscrupulous, self-absorbed; concerned only with his own feelings and pleasure. It’s a trick to create a monster, a character devoid of any emotional intelligence, and yet still set him up as the object of desire. Rogowski slithers through the film, using magnetism to manipulate Martin and Agatha, drawing both into his tumultuous world. It’s an impressive performance, equal parts maddening and mesmeric.

Rogowski dominates the film, but Whishaw and Exarchopoulos are given latitude to be more than just victims of the charismatic Tomas. He is their weakness, but neither are weak characters. Both have scenes that display their strength and lives outside of Tomas’s toxic circle.

“Passages” feels like a throwback to the erotic relationship films of the 1980s and 90s. It is an adult, sexual film with a couple explicit scenes, but more than that, it is explicit in its emotional complexity.