Chad

Undeadcow

Reading the synopsis I thought this film had potential, then I put the DVD in. So much of the film seems flat (despite the lively punk/pop soundtrack).

I'm trying to decide if I admired the plot for being subtle stringing scenes that seemed disconnected in a dreamy way to make the viewer think or if it was just nonsensical mush. Part of the problem is the lack of characterization and the cinematography which de-emphasized individuals (often showing hair not eyes with rare close-ups). The unstable pothead had the most dialog and he was an auxillary character. On one hand I appreciated the detachment, which contributed to a surreal vibe, but on the other hand it made it hard to care about the plot. I think the film could have found a better balance of sensory isolation versus narrative drive. Some of imagery was nice but the conclusion felt like a brush off.

For some reason I kept expecting the student archangel to be pregnant leading to the next Lucifer reincarnation (I thought the Stefan dream sex sequence intended to foreshadow this, maybe it does). Also, giving Fear No Evil benefit of the doubt it seemed like there was a bit about redemption for the senior archangel atoning for her lapse in the prior 'exorcism.'

cproaps

I believe there is a truly good movie buried somewhere in what you get. There are some fantastic SCENES but they can't carry the movie by themselves. There is about an hour of stuff that I guess is supposed to be characterization for the characters, especially the high school students, that didn't make me care one bit when they were killed off in about 15 seconds at the end. This has classic horror and MST3K worthy sequences mixed together to the point that I'm not sure if I really liked it or not...

Trevor

Good points there cproaps, I think I completely agree. Noble effort for a low budget film and first time director, with glimpses of brilliance, but a lot of mediocrity too. I enjoyed the commentary much more than the film.

rbrown498

I first saw this film as the top half of a double feature at the drive-in almost 30 years ago. For some reason or another, I've always had the impression that the film was pretty good. That impression vanished pretty quickly, however, as I watched the film today. The film now seems like it's two films that have been poorly grafted together. There's the one film, all about the archangels and their terrestrial battle against Lucifer, which carries some pretty interesting ideas and a great visual style. Then there's the other film, which details how the main character's high school classmates and family relate to him. It's pretty overwrought (especially the scenes involving Andrew's christening and his 18th birthday cake) and looks noticeably grimy. There's also a strange homoerotic subtext running through the movie--if, as someone once pointed out, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddie's Revenge is the gayest horror film ever made, then Fear No Evil runs it a close second. I remember Fangoria reporting that Avco Embassy (the film's distributor--it was a pick-up release) pumped in a pretty hefty chunk of change for all the optical work at the end, and they undoubtedly pumped in more bucks for the new wave soundtrack that they promoted pretty heavily in order to get the kids into the theater seats. It worked for me, and I guess for a lot of other folks as well, as the film went on to do respectably well at the box office. Unfortunately, the film just doesn't hold up, with the ending being, for me, a major disappointment. I really wanted to like this movie (again), but I just couldn't do it.

Dick Laurent

Not for me. I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, first movie, low budget, etc. But it just doesn't work for me. What bugged me the most was the soundtrack and the score were not at all compatible. Great songs, terrible score. I kept waiting for a leprechaun or hobbit to appear. Director should have splurged and paid for someone to do the score for him.