Watch The Serpent and the Rainbow For Free

Just what I expected

Best movie of this year hands down!

As Good As It Gets

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Loosely based on the non-fiction book by the ethnobotanist Wade Davis, "The Serpent and the Rainbow" started production as a realistic approach on the author's investigation in Haiti about a drug used in the Voodoo religion to create zombies.Davis wanted Aussie director Peter Weir to direct and his then favorite leading actor, Mel Gibson to portray him on screen, but after the duo lost interest, the project was delivered to the "master of schlock", Wes Craven due to his work in the dreamlike movies such as "Deadly Blessing", "Deadly Friend" and his most well-known "A Nightmare on Elm Street". Craven brought in all his bizarre imagination, surreal sets & gruesome scenes, but with him on the helm the movie started itself to distance from the realism of a, supposedly, true story.Visually, "The Serpent and the Rainbow" is craftsmanship at its best for a movie of this peculiar genre: the locations were perfectly spotted so as the hundreds of extras selected and the engaging cinematography by John Lindley gave it a sweaty, gritty & hypnotic feel, in the vein of what Michael Seresin did for Alan Parker's "Angel Heart" a year before.The screenplay have its flaws, it may be too confusing for a viewer at a first watch and like Craven's own direction, it tried to achieve in so many genres: the 'serious' drama / suspense movie; an unrealistic popcorn horror film (such as "A Nightmare on Elm Street") or a revolution / war drama (such as Weir's "The Year of Living Dangerously") that the end result is a bit messy.The pace is uneven and the plot is slow to develop and the editing even if it isn't the best, it's still passable.Bill Pullman for the central role of Dennis Alan (an alias for the author Wade Davis) was an odd choice, he isn't that great of an actor and lacks charisma to carry a movie on his shoulders and his clean looks, boy scout smile and fragile appearance of a townsman did not contrast well with the "Indiana Jones" adventurer, skilled in Jungle methods of survival and in establishing contact with lost tribes that his character required. The supporting cast however were fantastic in their roles, especially Brent Jennings as the quirky Mozart & South African actor, Zakes Mokae as the unforgettable creepy Dargent Peytraud.In short, even with its flaws, "The Serpent and the Rainbow" still works as a piece of surrealism / hypnotic film that captivates the viewer and put him side-by-side with the fears of the protagonist of falling into the realms of a strange drug: a compound of tetrodotoxin, a powerful hallucinogenic plant called Datura and black magic, that can provide him a worse fate than death...

It seems safe to say that we are experiencing something of a wave of interests in zombies at the moment. Yet I'm sure many of those who are interested in the various movies, shows and books based on the undead might well be unaware of their real world roots in Haiti and voodoo. Offering something of a contrast with George Romero, 28 Days Later and The Walking Dead is this film from 1988. Directed by Wes Craven and inspired by the real events detailed in Wade Davis' book of the same title, The Serpent And The Rainbow presents a look at the real-life "zombie" phenomenon with dashes of horror added to it.Note that I used the word "inspired" above. The film itself claims to be inspired by true events and cites that it is inspired by the book rather than based on it. I must confess that I've (yet) to read the book but watching the film and doing a bit of online research makes it clear that a liberal amount of adaptation must have taken place. The real life ethnobotanist (a scientific field that mixes elements of anthropology and botany) Wade Davis becomes the fictionalized Doctor Dennis Alan in the first of many changes the film makes. Amongst the changes are a shifting of the time frame in which events take place from across several years in the late 1970s and early 1980s to a short period of time in 1985-86 (which was in fact after the book had been published). Nor does it appear that Davis went through many, if any, of the hellish experiences presented in the film. In other words, it is VERY important to take what the film presents in terms of events with a grain of salt though there are, to mix metaphors, nuggets of truth in an otherwise barren landscape of fiction.Judging the film on its own merits, it's actually pretty good for what it is. For much of its running time, we're presented with a film that's part Indiana Jones, part The Omen as the cynical American Doctor Alan goes to Haiti in search of a presumed drug responsible for the zombie phenomenon and begins to encounter a series of strange people and events that leads the film into psychological horror territory. Not that the film has the budget or story for Indiana Jones large scale action sequences but it's hard not to see Doctor Alan as something of a Jones type though his brashness and cynicism quickly lead him into trouble. With the horror being played out in largely dreams and hallucinations, combined with threats and a moment of slightly overplayed but unsettling torture, the film has an air of menace to it that lends tension to proceedings. For its first seventy minutes or so, while the film is firmly in this territory, it works.It's in the last twenty-five minutes or so that the film goes off the rails a bit. Having presented a solid tale of intrigue and psychological horror, the film shifts into full-on horror film mode for its last act. In a full departure from real events, we see Alan go through the zombie process and have a showdown with the sinister head of secret police who it turns out is at the heart of the phenomenon. Neither the writing, nor the special effects for that matter, are up for much here (nor are they in another major departure from real events earlier on in the film) as clichés including the villainous cult leader combine with low budget effects to give the film a rather unsatisfying ending.More satisfying perhaps is the film's cast. A young Bill Pullman does quite well as Doctor Alan, bring the right amount of both American naiveté and scientific cynicism to the role as someone who has to deal with increasingly strange happenings while also just trying to get out of the country in one piece. Indeed the film's American characters, including Paul Guilfoyle and the always delightful Michael Gough, probably come across best of all the performances. The film's Haitian characters are, largely due to the script, little more than walking and talking clichés. The standouts from those include Zakes Mokae as the villainous head of Haiti's secret police who, despite the clichés attached to his character, gives quite a good performance under the circumstances and Conrad Roberts as Christophe Durand (a character inspired by the real-life zombie case of Clairvius Narcisse). Despite some of the script issues that hamper them, the performances by and large work and serve the film well.Looking past the script and sometimes iffy special effects, the production values are quite good as well. The film benefits immensely from being shot in location in both Haiti and the nearby Dominican Republic, both of which lend the film a strong sense of both place and (perhaps more importantly) verisimilitude that it might otherwise lack given its subject matter. The sets, costumes and especially the make up all look good when they're trying to be done subtly and not (as mentioned earlier) when they're put to full on "horror" effect. All of which leaves the film feeling solidly made at the very least.Despite its far removal from reality and its ill-done shift to "horror" movie in its last act, The Serpent And The Rainbow stands up decently. As a tale of intrigue and psychological horror, as well as presenting an interesting look at the real-world inspiration behind zombies, it works quite well thanks to its cast and production values. Those expecting a horror film might be disappointed while those hoping for something that plays more to the film's strengths will likely be left feeling likewise with its last act. The film seems to fall between the two and, due to being unable to pick a side and stay there, ends up being intriguing though perhaps a tad unsatisfying in the end.

In our modern horror cinema, the "zombie" genre has been overtaken by flesh-eating ghouls and infection films that come from the Romero/ Fulci family tree. However, before Romero's Living Dead films, the word "zombie" often had a very different connotation, going back to the voodoo rituals that would create mindless slaves. From classic horror movies like WHITE ZOMBIE and I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE to Hammer's PLAGUE OF THE ZOMBIES, this was the archetype that Hollywood explored when it talked about zombies and it is this territory that Craven hearkens back to in this late 80s classic.There is a lot to love about this movie, starting with that general concept. Though lovers of classic cinema may be familiar with the films I mentioned, most "modern horror" fans hadn't really seen a voodoo zombie movie before. To me, as a 13 year old kid when this was released, this was something completely new, exploring a culture that was wild and exotic and more than a little creepy.That creepiness pervades this movie. There is so much atmosphere created. Craven does a great job of introducing his main character to psychotropic drugs right in the beginning. This allows him to play with some surreal dream imagery thereafter and create all sort of bizarre images for us, all wrapped under the guise of our heroes mind being opened up to the spiritual. Beyond the dream images, Craven injects all manner of wonderful imagery into this movie, using the Haitian landscape, human fear of being buried alive, catholic and voodoo iconography and some of the creepiest cemeteries you'll see. All of it creates this world where just about anything is possible and most of it will be nightmarish.The writing is actually pretty good, for a horror movie. They work in the requisite budding romance, without it ever feeling tacked on and unnecessary. They manage to add in several subplots, as well, that add to the movie instead of detract, created a very layered film that not only explores voodoo, but the temperature of the Haitian political climate at the time.Some of the effects now look a little dated, but I'm not going to hold that against a movie. They are products of their time, naturally. If they are one of those lucky films that manages to hold up, even better, but many look dated 30 years later.The biggest negative to me and the thing I notice the most on recent viewings is that Bill Pullman is just...bad. He's presented to us as an almost Indiana Jones type of explorer and I'm not buying it for a minute. His vocal tone seems more high-pitched than I remember him being in his other roles. The worst parts of his performance come when he's relied on to perform the more physical aspects such as the torture scene, or his big moment when he's been drugged and looking for help. He just looks really amateurish to me in these moments and I find that he's the biggest thing keeping this from being a little higher rated in my opinion.

Wes Craven really is kind of a hit or miss director. He made The Serpent and the Rainbow in 1988 at an interesting time of his career after having some success with Nightmare on Elm Street but after the disaster of Deadly Friend. The Serpent and the Rainbow has a few interesting ideas but Craven never really develops them very well. This is really a big miss film from Craven.Dennis Alan (Bill Pullman ) a researcher out of Harvard goes to Haiti to tackle the mystery of a zombie legend and also a type of drug that might be connected. There is also a voodoo theme as the drug is used in Haitian voodoo rituals.You really to have to question what Craven was doing with this film. He starts with what seems like an interesting plot and the really lets it sink. The plot really goes everywhere and is very hard to follow. There is also a love story that is very shallow as well as dream scenes that never seem to end. By act 3, you expect that it can't get much worse but you would be wrong. It also has an ending that has you saying "What am I even watching?" Frankly, this is a movie where in the end, you don't even know what you just watched.Interestingly, this was Bill Pullman's second film ever and before he had his big roles. Actually, he plays his role very well and the character is smart, has a heart and is easy to root for. Pullman makes this movie somewhat bearable along with some rather different zombies.I think this is a case where Craven basically had a couple of random ideas and put them together and called it a film. I hated this movie with a passion even more so considering what it could have been.