DVD Review: THE UNBORN: UNRATED (DVD;Universal/Rogue/Platinum Dunes/Relativity Media)

Mike LoManaco

Studio Name: Universal (Rogue Pictures/Platinum Dunes/Phantom Four/Relativity Media)
MPAA Rating: PG-13/NOT RATED
Disc/Transfer Information: Region 1 (U.S.); Anamorphic Widescreen 2.40:1
Audio Track Tested: English Dolby Digital 5.1
Director: David S. Goyer
Starring Cast: Odette Yustman, Gary Oldman

SYNOPSIS:

Towards the end of William Friedkin's classic The Exorcist, Ellen Burstyn, playing the mother of the possessed girl (Linda Blair) is talking to a group of doctors who are trying to figure out what is wrong with her daughter. At some point, one of the head doctors makes a reference to the rite of exorcism, and how it has been brushed into the closet except by the Catholics, who view it as an embarrassment of sorts -- but he also makes a reference to how a priest or a rabbi attempt to drive out the invading spirit during exorcism, and this was the very first mention I had ever heard of the Jewish faith being mentioned in the same sentence as "exorcism." In David S. Goyer's latest gorefest, The Unborn, we are actually witness to the notion of a Jewish exorcism rite -- something I don't believe has ever been put on celluloid save for some rough mentions of the "Pazuzu" demon being inside a female nurse who is Jewish in Exorcist: The Beginning. And, like that Renny Harlin prequel to the Exorcist franchise, The Unborn deals with a backstory regarding the Holocaust of World War II.

It's interesting that Goyer, flexing his directing chops after getting behind the pen for The Dark Knight, would choose demonic possession as an avenue for cinematic expression -- perhaps there was indeed a connection in casting Gary Oldman here as a Jewish rabbi, as strange as that may sound. Usually only gathered to remake classic horror films, Michael Bay and his "Platinum Dunes" cohorts got together on this one, and it is indeed one of the better possession-themed films to come along in awhile. I am a fan of this genre -- give me The Exorcist or Amityville II: The Possession on any late-night film viewing session -- and not being of the Catholic faith, I found the subject material here most astonishing, being how I explained that never was there a film that really concentrated on Judaism aspects of demonic possession. The film isn't bad, but what lets it down is Goyer's clear borrowing from so many tried-and-true formulas already, such as the constant looking into mirrors to see demonic images, the African-American friend of a sexy lead Caucasian female who believes nothing anyone tells her and does anything to comfort her "white girl," and a sequence ripped directly off of the re-released Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen in which Linda Blair's character tumbles down a flight of steps, backwards (a scene titled "The Spiderwalk") while blood gushes from her mouth -- in The Unborn, it's dogs and people whose heads turn around while they climb steps backwards as Blair did in Exorcist.

Now, you wanna talk sexy? To watch the deliciously tempting Odette Yustman parade around in her boy short panties with that amazing body and sick, tight **** of hers is enough to make you blow a wad in your home theater chair -- but this happens multiple times in the film, so you better have some reserve. Yustman is just slammin' hot, but, like most modern horror, the script and final product is not helped by this: Again, we have young 20-somethings we just don't give a **** about (I know I sure don't) rambling about demons and visions and ghosts and how they're going crazy -- all inbetween going to classes and acting so self-important on their cell phones, iPhones, iPods, laptops and whatever else they use to take up air with these days. Isn't there one director in Hollywood or one writer for that matter that doesn't have to succumb to this ridiculous formula? Does everything we see in cinema today demand that we relate to this demographic, or worse yet, the kind that's smokin' the weed in the beginning of the Friday the 13th remake or the ghetto trash that's hanging out with Paris Hilton's character in the remake of House of Wax?

Alas, I have to review this title, so I need to go over the formula once again...In a suburb of Chicago, a sexy college girl (Yustman) is beginning to see visions of a creepy little boy with piercing blue eyes. Everywhere she looks, she sees this kid who seems to constantly be missing one of his blue gloves, which she finds on roads and other locations. What is it, also, about creepy little kids that turn up out of nowhere to carry signs from the other side? Why is almost every horror film based on this notion? Kids are unnaturally creepy as it is -- but are they all demonic? As Yustman's visions of the boy get stronger and more frightening -- and as she screws her annoying boyfriend even though she's coming apart psychologically and goes to nightclubs dressed like a tart -- her physical image begins to change, too, mainly in the form of her eyes. The prerequisite African-American best friend notices it on her first, and the first manifestation seems to be coming in the form of a change in color. When a doctor looks at it (this seems to be Goyer's borrowing of Jessica Alba in the American remake of The Eye) he concludes, somehow, that Yustman must have had a twin at some point because it seems like genetic information has been "fused." And indeed, she had a twin brother that had died in the womb at birth. Turning in a surprisingly brief performance as Yustman's father is James Remar -- remember him as "Ajax" from The Warriors? I haven't seen him in anything in quite some time. Ironically, I watched The Warriors just last night, prior to viewing The Unborn this evening.

At any rate, as in all modern horror, the clich

Mike LoManaco

THE UNBORN REVIEW CONTINUED...

Worthy of note is the fact that the disc comes in an "Unrated" edition, and I have to be honest -- I'm getting sick of studios releasing this way. Almost every horror/shock title released over the past five years or so is launched in this way, and I just don't get it...usually, the cover exclaims "Too Much Gore For The Theaters!" in order to justify the "Unrated" moniker -- in reality, the last title I saw that actually lived up to that promise a bit was Universal's release of the Dawn of the Dead remake. Otherwise, this label is merely for adding minutes of additional footage not seen in theaters, and this normally equates to absolutely nothing of value for the film itself. In the case of The Unborn, I selected the Unrated cut from the menu to watch, but it still came in under an hour and a half.

VIDEO QUALITY:

Another nice transfer from Universal. The Unborn is saturated with cold, steely blues and other cool hues throughout most of the under-90-minute running time so it's a difficult one to judge in terms of saturated colors. The disc exhibited little noise or digital compression issues, and aside from some aliasing and slight shimmering, I didn't notice anything that would cause this to be labeled a "poor transfer." There is a muted, purposely-shadowy look to the film, and this translated onto home optical media as it should have.

AUDIO QUALITY:

Surprisingly, there wasn't that much excitement to the Dolby Digital 5.1 audio track accompanying The Unborn. As with modern "horror" and shocker titles, there's a hefty looming of heavy LFE in the background, and this was aggressive, but the dialogue was a bit low and there was unbelievably little surround activity. The back channels appeared to merely be bracing the soundfield and creating vague, random ambience. There weren't any blatant, aggressively-driven moments where effects and elements went screaming into a surround channel -- surprising for the "supernatural" material here. In fact, in keeping with the theme, the remixed Dolby EX track on The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen DVD was actually more dynamic in terms of channel activity than The Unborn.

SUMMARY:

As I discussed above, it was a genuinely refreshing attempt to see a horror film that dealt with the topic of demonic possession from a Jewish faith perspective, and for that, I give Goyer credit. But The Unborn unfortunately falls into many ripoffs and clich

kuntasensei

"To watch the deliciously tempting Odette Yustman parade around in her boy short panties with that amazing body and sick, tight **** of hers is enough to make you blow a wad in your home theater chair"

Now that's professional review writing right there! Heh...

But you sho' right... Odette Yustman is gorgeous.

hockeyboy

That line right there tempts me to pick this one up.

kuntasensei

Yeah... just finished watching it. It's awful. Odette Yustman is hot, but it isn't enough to distract you from the fact that this movie is just a half-assed mish-mash of stuff from other horror movies. It starts off with an intriguing concept but languishes too long in the opening filler and then doesn't deliver anything resembling a satisfying payoff. Rent it if you're curious... but it's a mess of a movie.

Mike LoManaco

kuntasensei wrote: »

"To watch the deliciously tempting Odette Yustman parade around in her boy short panties with that amazing body and sick, tight **** of hers is enough to make you blow a wad in your home theater chair"

Now that's professional review writing right there! Heh...

But you sho' right... Odette Yustman is gorgeous.

I already stated that I would stop making the "pro" reference in the beginning of the reviews because it seems to be pissing too many people off in here -- I did that, even though I already confirmed the fact that I tailor these reviews for different mediums and markets, and these are absolutely altered for general forum viewing, and STILL you're making comments about this to continue the flaming and arguments that develop almost instantaneously whenever I put a subject up. Isn't it enough already? :rolleyes:

My point was that I thought she was plenty of eye candy to look at -- I didn't put that line you quoted above in the printed versions of this review, obviously.

I have always been embelished with overwhelming humor when someone accuses someone of something and continues to poke fun at them -- such as what '**** is doing with my review writing -- and yet they never expose or provide something that is better or more interesting; it's like the schoolyard bully who pushes people around to make himself feel better about "who he is."

I'm glad, though, that as a man, you at least see eye to eye with me on her looks...

Mike LoManaco

kuntasensei wrote: »

Yeah... just finished watching it. It's awful. Odette Yustman is hot, but it isn't enough to distract you from the fact that this movie is just a half-assed mish-mash of stuff from other horror movies. It starts off with an intriguing concept but languishes too long in the opening filler and then doesn't deliver anything resembling a satisfying payoff. Rent it if you're curious... but it's a mess of a movie.

Did I not SAY almost all of what you're saying above in the review? The borrowing from other films...the disappointing ending...are you implying that just because I wrote it the way I did the same information isn't valid?

Ricardo

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Did I not SAY almost all of what you're saying above in the review? The borrowing from other films...the disappointing ending...are you implying that just because I wrote it the way I did the same information isn't valid?

Hey Mikey; so now no one else can say anything about the movie if you already mentioned it?

Great.

Ron-P

This film is one I hope to never see, looks terrible from the trailers.

Mike LoManaco

Ricardo wrote: »

Hey Mikey; so now no one else can say anything about the movie if you already mentioned it?

Great.

Hey Ricky,

Ease up a little and STOP the thread hijacking -- you didn't even come into this thread with ANYTHING constructive to add. THAT'S NOT what I meant by my response to him -- he seemed to be re-issuing the exact same things I said about the film, so I wanted to know what he was getting at.

brettw22

If I had to guess, I'd say he thought the movie sucked and wanted to say that in his own words........

I don't know how that becomes something of a slight against you, but then I'm awake at 6am and not sure if I am picking up on the intentional Mikebashing.......

kuntasensei

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

I have always been embelished with overwhelming humor when someone accuses someone of something and continues to poke fun at them -- such as what '**** is doing with my review writing -- and yet they never expose or provide something that is better or more interesting; it's like the schoolyard bully who pushes people around to make himself feel better about "who he is."

First, I was not making any accusation. I was just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy. You say that you didn't include those vulgar references in your "printed" versions, so why craft them especially for this forum? I hardly see how referring to a woman as a "smokin' piece of tail" or using the phrase "blow a wad" is in any way catering to the members of this forum, nor do I think it's particularly appropriate.

Stop playing the victim. If your skin is really thin, you need to get out of the writing business.

kuntasensei

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Did I not SAY almost all of what you're saying above in the review? The borrowing from other films...the disappointing ending...are you implying that just because I wrote it the way I did the same information isn't valid?

First, I wouldn't know what you said in your review, nor will most other people, because no one will read that far. I'm not saying that what you wrote isn't valid, but I think you should pay attention to the fact that I was able to convey pretty much what you apparently said in your review... and it only took me five sentences. I also did so without giving away any of the salient plot points.

Now, I'm sure you're going to read the above and think that you're being attacked or demonized in some way, and I assure you that you have yet to see me attack you. If you would take some constructive criticism, you're exhibiting the cardinal sin of writing - excessive exposition. No movie review should be longer than the original pitch for the movie likely was. I sincerely hope that whatever print outlet is using your work has a vigilant editorial staff. You are clearly passionate about what you're writing, but you desperately need to practice your art. Especially in print, brevity is a godsend.

Ricardo

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Hey Ricky,

Ease up a little and STOP the thread hijacking -- you didn't even come into this thread with ANYTHING constructive to add. THAT'S NOT what I meant by my response to him -- he seemed to be re-issuing the exact same things I said about the film, so I wanted to know what he was getting at.

Your reading comprehension is not good again. I am not hijacking, and if you really pay attention, you can get a lot of constructive criticism from my post.

I'll try to be more explicit now:

Many of your comments, either in your reviews or in responses to other members, make you come as a pompous ****. If you really want to become an accepted member of this community, I would suggest you start analyzing what is it that makes your writing come like that. Because most people around here don't like pompous ****.


Hope that helps.

wutadumsn23

So......... lol. Just watched this movie tonight and other than the few tempting shots of ole girl in her underthings this movie pretty much sucked, IMO.

Ron-P

wutadumsn23 wrote: »

So......... lol. Just watched this movie tonight and other than the few tempting shots of ole girl in her underthings this movie pretty much sucked, IMO.

The trailers spelled that out so why waste time actually watching the film?

BlueFox

Does anyone remember the greatest movie critic of all times, Joe Bob Briggs? His reviews were fantastic, and his rating system made sense. "8 ****, buckets of blood...."

wutadumsn23

Ron-P wrote: »

The trailers spelled that out so why waste time actually watching the film?

Never saw the trailers, and besides I can't count the number of times I have been dissapointed in a movie after actually enjoying the trailers, and vise-versa.

concealer404

The trailers pretty much had every redeeming part of this film already spliced into them. This movie sucked. BAD.

The dog with the upside down head and the paralyzed dude skittering around was pretty badass though. But that was about it.

zombie boy 2000

BlueFox wrote: »

Does anyone remember the greatest movie critic of all times, Joe Bob Briggs? His reviews were fantastic, and his rating system made sense. "8 ****, buckets of blood...."

Absolutely!! He is an total legend. And you wouldn't know it from his redneck persona, but he was actually extremely intelligent. He just happened to get his journalism degree from Vanderbilt.

Mike LoManaco

brettw22 wrote: »

If I had to guess, I'd say he thought the movie sucked and wanted to say that in his own words........

It seemed like he was revomiting everything I was saying in the initial review, that's why I asked.

I don't know how that becomes something of a slight against you, but then I'm awake at 6am and not sure if I am picking up on the intentional Mikebashing.......

No, you did indeed pick up on the intentional Mikebashing -- spot on, my friend. And I never said it was a slight against me.

Mike LoManaco

kuntasensei wrote: »

First, I was not making any accusation. I was just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy. You say that you didn't include those vulgar references in your "printed" versions, so why craft them especially for this forum? I hardly see how referring to a woman as a "smokin' piece of tail" or using the phrase "blow a wad" is in any way catering to the members of this forum, nor do I think it's particularly appropriate.

There is no hypocrisy -- I didn't specifically write the review you see above JUST FOR THIS FORUM ALONE, it tailored for a more "general" read for the mainly male audiences that visit these forums, and it has been delegated to multiple forums. Stop twisting what I'm saying.

And if the mainly male audience that's frequenting Polk's forums here has an "issue" with reading words about hot women in films and the way in which I refer to them, there's a bigger issue going on in their own households far beyond what I am encroaching on here, buddy...:rolleyes:

Stop playing the victim. If your skin is really thin, you need to get out of the writing business.

Ahhh. The "hurt school girl approach." Someone else does the work, you criticize to an overkill extreme because you think it's funny or "acceptable" on an anonymous medium like an online discussion forum, and I am the one who is playing the victim, eh? I should get out of the writing business why, exactly...because you are saying that people like you who hurl the criticism as easily as the sun rises are CONSTANTLY going to continue doing what you're doing? THAT'S the reason? You absolutely have to criticize with no other course of action when you read these reviews, is that it?

Jesus Christ...:rolleyes:

Mike LoManaco

Ricardo wrote: »

Your reading comprehension is not good again. I am not hijacking, and if you really pay attention, you can get a lot of constructive criticism from my post.

I'll try to be more explicit now:

Many of your comments, either in your reviews or in responses to other members, make you come as a pompous ****. If you really want to become an accepted member of this community, I would suggest you start analyzing what is it that makes your writing come like that. Because most people around here don't like pompous ****.


Hope that helps.

You know something, Ricardo? I was going to go with the "If I wanted to hear from an ****, I would have farted" reply and be done with you, but you are so cruel and disillusioned that I need to point this out to you:

I am ABSOLUTELY NOT a pompous **** -- if you KNEW ME PERSONALLY you would know that. So you're way off on that one. If there's anyone coming across as a pompous **** it's you, for multiple reasons. And accusing you of hijacking the threads has NOTHING to do with my "reading comprehension"...I told you to stop hijacking the threads because you came into THIS thread with NOTHING to contribute except to throw fire on a flame that was already getting ready to boil; just to add that nonsense about "So, no one can comment about a film except for you, huh Mikey?" when that's not even what I WAS GETTING AT.

And YOU'RE the person I apologized to for the misunderstanding in the KNOWING thread, and who I NEVER heard back from about that? YOU'RE CALLING ME A POMPOUS ****?

Look in the mirror, pal. You're pathetically hypocritical. :rolleyes:

Hope THAT sums up what I need to say to YOU.

Mike LoManaco

wutadumsn23 wrote: »

So......... lol. Just watched this movie tonight and other than the few tempting shots of ole girl in her underthings this movie pretty much sucked, IMO.

"Ole Girl"? LOL...

It had a lot of potential -- as I said, with the Jewish take on demonic possession, etc...but what was Goyer thinking with casting Oldman as a rabbi? Many things went wrong in the film -- especially the action and FX during the final "exorcism" sequence...

Mike LoManaco

concealer404 wrote: »

The trailers pretty much had every redeeming part of this film already spliced into them.

An issue with many modern films today; although, in retrospect, did you ever see the trailers from '70s films? They pretty much show the entire film with some narration over it...

This movie sucked. BAD.

The dog with the upside down head and the paralyzed dude skittering around was pretty badass though. But that was about it.

While effective, these special effects shots were obviously taken from films like The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen, what with the "upside down" shots for shock value, like when Linda Blair tumbles down the stairs in the spiderwalk sequence...

Ricardo

Whatever Mikey. Just trying to give you some constructive advice, but I guess you don't want to take it.

Have fun.

kuntasensei

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Ahhh. The "hurt school girl approach." Someone else does the work, you criticize to an overkill extreme because you think it's funny or "acceptable" on an anonymous medium like an online discussion forum, and I am the one who is playing the victim, eh? I should get out of the writing business why, exactly...because you are saying that people like you who hurl the criticism as easily as the sun rises are CONSTANTLY going to continue doing what you're doing? THAT'S the reason? You absolutely have to criticize with no other course of action when you read these reviews, is that it?

Jesus Christ...:rolleyes:

You haven't seen me criticize to "an overkill extreme", and I honestly don't understand why you're reacting as if I'm attacking you. As for the "anonymous medium" part, my name is Jeremy L. Anderson. I am a former editor of a literary journal, former syndicated humor columnist, award winning poet, and a writer. The reason I said that you should get out of the business if your skin is this thin is because you won't make it if you can't take constructive criticism (which is what you're getting here, if you'd stop acting like we're out to get you).

Out of curiosity, what print outlets are you writing these for? It seems like their length would be prohibitive to publication in most newspapers and magazines. Also, if you're being paid for their publication, how do they feel about you reprinting modified versions of them in online forums? Just curious.

Mike LoManaco

Ricardo wrote: »

Whatever Mikey. Just trying to give you some constructive advice, but I guess you don't want to take it.

Have fun.

Right -- your accusations that I am a "pompous ****" are out of genuine concern for me and you are spewing that kind of hateful rhetoric because you are giving me constructive criticism...

Gotcha.

kuntasensei

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Right -- your accusations that I am a "pompous ****" are out of genuine concern for me and you are spewing that kind of hateful rhetoric because you are giving me constructive criticism...

Gotcha.

In fairness, he never accused you of being a pompous ****, nor did he call you one. He simply suggested that your writing makes you come across that way. It seemed like an honest statement, and not particularly hateful.

Mike LoManaco

kuntasensei wrote: »

You haven't seen me criticize to "an overkill extreme", and I honestly don't understand why you're reacting as if I'm attacking you. As for the "anonymous medium" part, my name is Jeremy L. Anderson. I am a former editor of a literary journal, former syndicated humor columnist, award winning poet, and a writer. The reason I said that you should get out of the business if your skin is this thin is because you won't make it if you can't take constructive criticism (which is what you're getting here, if you'd stop acting like we're out to get you).

If I were to believe that was your actual real name and you boasted those actual credentials, well, that's your issue for putting that on a public forum. For me, needing to remain anonymous has become mandatory because of reactions such as what we're witnessing here; if you are an "award-winning poet and writer" why don't you "better" what I'm doing here since you feel to challenge me with each and every post I make...why the CONSTANT criticism? It's not necessary, and it borders on completely cruel. I have been published in multiple magazines (the current ones I am NOT revealing because of personal wishes and issues I have had concerning the public opinions regarding certain work) and in the past, these have consisted of AutoMedia/Car Sound & Performance (now defunct because of a United Entertainment Media sellout) and a multitude of home entertainment publications. I won't address what you state below, given that I have just explained myself here regarding the privacy issue. I simply WILL NOT reveal my real identity, name or anything else which makes the internet such a dangerous medium on a public forum; I am sorry.

If you do not believe me with regard to my credentials and profession, you don't believe me -- but I am making NONE of it up. I don't need to be told about "constructive criticism" as if I am out of high school for two years; I have been out of college for 13 years now and I am proud of my accomplishments. As for your statement about being "out to get me," it sure seems that way -- all the criticism regarding the full length reviews I actually sit and write are simply overkill...am I such a bad human being for using the words I use to convey my feelings about a film? I'm taking the time to write these pieces, and then edit and modify them for different uses, and all I get is grief in return. If moderation teams tell me the references to a woman's body parts are inappropriate for the board, I will change them. But I find it curious that everyone here seems to have a problem -- and initially you, as evidenced by the first reply in this thread -- with me describing how "hot" Yustman is, yet if you go into other review threads on other sites, you will see other (apparently) male members discussing how she's "shaved down there when she parades around in her panties" and no one else seems to have a problem with the subject matter...leading me to believe the comments in here are simply meant to give me a hard time and criticize what I'm contributing.

Mike LoManaco

kuntasensei wrote: »

In fairness, he never accused you of being a pompous ****, nor did he call you one. He simply suggested that your writing makes you come across that way. It seemed like an honest statement, and not particularly hateful.

It's just as good as calling me a "pompous ****" -- it's what he really feels, and at any rate, his comments aren't constructive; I APOLOGIZED to this guy in the Knowing thread for mixing up a reply, and yet again, he made a derailing, hurtful comment about me being the only person allowed to discuss a given film title, when that wasn't even TRUE OR SO. He never even acknowledged my apology, which I openly admitted was my fault (with regard to the mixup) and you still think I am not being fair or nice to him?

That's ridiculous, '**** -- at this point, it's self defense with regard to his comments.