A Scientist at the Movies Reviews by Greg Paris

The Evaluation System Reviews by Title Reviews by Date

Reviews from Video Reviews of the Classics Personal Background

Title: The Mothman Prophecies

Date Viewed: 2/3/02

Details:

Richard Gere

Laura Linney

Will Patton

Debra Messing

Director: Mark Pellington

Score: +

The Review: Spooky, dark, but not scary; a paranormal thriller.

"Things are not what they seem." This phrase often appears as the euphemistic ellipsis near the end of a plot synopsis of a murder mystery. In this case, the phrase becomes a summary of the philosophy underlying this entire movie, and the genre in which it is situated. A high-end Washington Post reporter (Gere) becomes mysteriously drawn to a small West Virginia town, and ends up on-site to investigate some rather odd goings-on, some of which involve him personally.

On the whole, the acting is reasonable, considering that most of the characters are operating way beyond the edge of their (or our) experience. Watching Patton's and Gere's characters slide toward what might be psychosis or might be enhanced sensitivity to the borders of reality, is eerie and unpleasant, but you are always brought back into an uneasy balance by some revelation, some observation -- something that might be interpretable as potential physical evidence. There is a creepiness reminiscent of Pellington's Arlington Road, but not a malevolence.

Mothman has just enough anthropological back-story to ease suspension of disbelief, sounding just feasible enough to get you thinking, and this is one of the reasons why I rate it as eminently watchable (see also 1st exculpatory aside). But opinions about this movie will be highly polarized, and I think I can guess why. To what extent should this be taken seriously? On the one hand, this is a movie and is garbed in the robes of entertainment. If philosophical speculation or paranormal meanderings entertain you, this is for you; and this is where I stand. If you have a hair trigger for movies that take themselves too seriously, this may not be for you. Ultimately, this is not a movie about evidence or proof -- it is about experience, perception, observation, all as precursors to understanding. Its evidentiary value is null, but as a psychological or parapsychological study, in (or close to) fiction, it is interesting. If you demand a documentary, you will not find it here.

The scariest part of deciding to see this movie is the barrier presented by the phrase "based on a true story" -- which makes me worry whether this is the truth of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, or the truth of National Enquirer and Weekly World News. The book upon which the script is based purports to offer a true accounting, but so did Fuller's Incident at Exeter and Streiber's Communion. (Some librarians cringe when they have to classify these books.) There is even a small "mothman" literature (such as it is, now being hyped by the release of the movie) sitting uncomfortably on the border between the paranormal, the Fortean, and cryptozoology: Keel's eponymous book dating back to 1991, Sergent & Wamsley's "the facts behind" book, and Coleman's collector's approach which is made to sound like cryptozoology. But if there is any conclusion about these phenomena suggested by the movie, it is that the cryptozoological approach does not apply. The entities to which the plot alludes bear some similarity to the "eldils" of C.S. Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet (and the rest of his trilogy), albeit stripped of any humanity and devoid of morality: "dark angels," if you will. The implication is not one of cause & effect, but their connection to the prophesied events is not coincidental, either.

The movie does us a favor, and a disfavor: a favor by turning a rambling book of UFOlogy, men in black and junk science into a vaguely coherent and occasionally thought-provoking thriller; and a disfavor by concealing the seamy pseudo-science side of paranormal investigation and reporting.

Back to the chronological list of reviews