The Ninth Gate (1999)

"A rare book dealer, while seeking out the last two copies of a demon text, gets drawn into a conspiracy with supernatural overtones."

Nine days left until Hallowe'en so it's time for "The Ninth Gate". See what I did there? Don't worry, it probably won't happen again. I doubt that I'll ever rewatch "The Ninth Gate" anytime soon either.

I'm not a Johnny Depp fan and find it kind of disgusting to watch somebody with $200,000,000 and their own island playing a part which absolutely anyone could have done just as well. I know his fizzog sells plenty of movies, but I find him overrated. Johnny Depp sort of reminds me of somebody I used to work with who had the same stupid little beard and reeked of body odour so, unfairly, I imagine him to be much the same.

I'm not going to get all moral on you but seeing Johhny Depp romp around naked with Roman Polanski's younger wife also makes me feel nauseous. Given Roman Polanski's criminal history, it's no surprise that his wife is half his age, but it's still weird to see her used in this way. I suppose she wanted to do it, but it's not right.

As you probably know, Johnny Depp plays the part of a "book detective" who gets hired to track down the last copies of a Satanic tome. With a neo-noir feel to the story, he's reminiscent of Mickey Rourke in "Angel Heart" to some extent. His employer, Boris Balkan (Frank Langella), is hardly Lucifer in disguise, but there are superficial similarities.

I'm not sure if the intention was to rework the "Angel Heart" storyline because I only listened to a few parts of the director's commentary on the DVD. I do know that "The Ninth Gate" was based on a novel about something less Satanic with an ending which faded out in a way that made it almost impossible to conclude satisfactorily here either. Kudos for at least trying to wrap things up, but after nearly two hours of watching a mystery unfold, it was still weak.

The standout for me is Lena Olin who plays Liana Telfer as one of the more truly vicious femmes fatales that I've seen for ages. Not only is she extremely hot but sinister with it. Corso (Johnny Depp) describes her as "dishy", but scary and mad as a bag of cats would also apply. She's certainly got claws and she bites!

It's amusing that so many rich characters in "The Ninth Gate" are all into collecting old books about witchcraft. It's yet another thing for the conspiracy theorists who drag up even though though it's just a trope. Considering the elaborate measures many of the bibliophiles take to safely store their treasures, the rough treatment which the Satanic book that they are all chasing receives is also unintentionally comical. I can't think of any book dealers who would handle such a valuable item without gloves, and I highly doubt that they would smoke all over it or press it onto a photocopier.

Roman Polanski's wife, Emmanuelle Seigner, who plays "The Girl" or "Green Eyes" does a fine job as a demonic sidekick even though her role is never truly explained. Whether she is saving Corso from destruction or leading him to his destiny is flawed thoughout the story. Ultimately, she's there to encourage his bad side, but it's complicated and open to too much interpretation. She's nice to look at when nude even though she has a Maryam d'Abo thing going on with her eyebrows which is distracting.

As for the plot, well, it's a mystery in the same vein as "The DaVnci Code" or "Angels and Demons" but years before Dan Brown even thought about writing them and without any twists. It's a straightforward, "connect the dots" affair with a little bit of horror action along the way. It's actually rather difficult to classify "The Ninth Gate" as a horror movie except for the supernatural elements and the Satanism because it isn't all that scary.

"The Ninth Gate" is a beautiful looking film with a rather sleazy and grubby atmosphere which makes me homesick, but the ending is such a disappointment that it it spoils what could have been another Roman Polanski classic.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

"A young couple move into a new apartment, only to be surrounded by peculiar neighbours and occurrences. When the wife becomes mysteriously pregnant, paranoia over the safety of her unborn child begins controlling her life."

Day 16 of my "Hallowe'en Countdown" brings us "Rosemary"s Baby". Why? Because the story begins in October, and it's full of witches, that's why. Hallowe'en is, after all, still one of the most important of the witches' sabbats whether a new name was slapped on top of the old pagan festival or not.

Although Rosemary is impregnated on the October 4th, 1965 according to her calendar and tells her husband the good news on the 29th, with a further blood test scheduled for November 1st, we can all assume that the witches had a little something extra to celebrate during their Hallowe'en weekend. Bizarrely, no Samhain festivities are shown.

At first, it's surprising that Roman Polanski didn't utilize the obvious cliché, but upon further reflection, maybe not. Even the most superficial searches of the internet reveal many conspiracy theories surrounding Roman Polanski, Satanism and the setting of the movie itself. For those of us who hadn't even been born when the events were going down in real life, it all makes fascinating reading which goes beyond mere coincidence. Did Roman Polanski sell his soul to the Devil in exchange for success or did he get involved with the "pseudo-Illuminati", who knows? If he did either, surely putting a warning message about secret societies into a movie wasn't the brightest idea.

But who even cares about any of that behind the scenes nonsense? We all know that movie people are strange and have pretty messed up lives anyway. If it adds to the appreciation of Polanksi's study of paranoia in "Rosemary's Baby" (which is based on Ira Levin's novel from the year before), so be it. I've always found "Rosemary's Baby" interesting for far less occult reasons.

Longer hair suits her more than a Vidal Sassoon bob.

As shallow as it may be, the main reason I like "Rosemary's Baby' is because Mia Farrow looks pretty in it, and she gets nude several times. I don't like her acting and could cheerfully strangle her character, but this is the only film I've ever seen her in where she looks attractive. Maybe not so much in the picture above, but for a very skinny and almost skeletal girl, Mia Farrow has several moments where the camera really loves her.

Rosemary Woodhouse is a very well written character and suits Mia Farrow perfectly. Having watched "The Haunting of Julia" (1977) only a couple of months ago and noted the lack of her development as an actress, it's clear that Mia Farrow really only played herself anyway. All that nervousness and neuroses are unlikely to be a product of simply being typecast.

As for supporting characters in "Rosemary's Baby", I loathe them all to different degrees which, obviously, is their raison d'être. From the controlling Guy Woodhouse (John Cassavetes) treating his wife like a child to the excessively irritating Minnie Castevet (Ruth Gordon) pushing the nosy neighbour stereotype to breaking point, they are all shown to be horrible people. If there's a warning in this film, it's never move to New York city.

It's pronounced "moose" not "mouse", you old bag!

Ruth Gordon does a fantastic (and Oscar winning) job as the ultimate "neighbour from Hell", but I could never tolerate much of her as an actress. Her voice, her face, and the way she delivers her lines just makes me think of the "kill it with fire" meme. Why Rosemary doesn't just deliver a deluge of the expletives which would fall so easily out of my own mouth to someone as pushy as that is one of the weakest parts of "Rosemary's Baby" for me. No matter how naive Rosemary is supposed to be, Americans are generally not so backward in coming forward when something annoys them. It's all part of the sinister plot though.

Since "Rosemary's Baby" is regarded as a classic movie by the majority of critics (not only by horror fans), I'm not going to make myself look foolish by picking any more holes in it. For one thing, I can't really find anything wrong other than how it never delivers the punchline of actually showing the baby. Bearing in mind that it was released during the Summer of 1968, and the effects for the brief appearance by the Devil himself were the best that could be done, it was a wise decision not to show an infant with glowing eyes, cloven hooves, horns, or a long, pointy tail.

If you've never seen "Rosemary's Baby" before, I've no doubt spoiled a lot of it for you. It's nearly 45 years old now though so you've had plenty of time to watch it. With the number of times it's been shown on television across the world, its almost impossible that anyone doesn't already know the story inside and out. The chances are that you haven't put in on for a while though so plonk it in your DVD player tonight and give it another whirl.