Search - The Covenant: Brotherhood of Evil on DVD

WRONG MOVIE

Ryan Hack | Salem, OH USA | 09/24/2006

(1 out of 5 stars)

"The DVD that is being released here is matched with the wrong description. This is not the 2006 Covenant that was released in September. That has yet to be announced."

An absolute clunker

mrliteral | 10/22/2006

(1 out of 5 stars)

"You can't copyright a title. Therefore, it occasionally happens that two movies with the same title appear that are unassociated with each other. Such is the case with The Covenant, which came out twice in around a year, both times as horror movies. I can't comment on the latter release (having not seen it), but my guess based on watching the earlier Covenant is that version two is probably the better of the two. It would be hard to be worse.



This first movie stars Edward Furlong as David Goodman (he's essentially a good man, get it?), a political public relations guy who is gifted at his job and has an inexplicably devoted hot blonde wife. I say inexplicable, because even early in the movie, he comes off as weaselly and banal, hardly one to attact such a woman, let alone have her head-over-heel in love with him. Ah, well, love is blind, and soon he is also, the victim of a criminal act.



Fortunately, he is offered a chance at getting his sight restored by Michael Madsen, a villainous sort who gives David a demonic cane that restores his vision and also turns him evil (or rather, feeds on David's naturally evil tendencies). This leads to murders and other crimes, while David's wife investigates the origin of the cane. All of which leads to a climax that is silly and derivative.



Done correctly, this could have been a good movie, but instead, we get a bunch of standard movie cliches. When a car catches fire, it, of course, explodes with that strange triple blast that only happens in bad movies. When the wife is told by a professor that he has discovered important information and "Come see me" (because apparently he is incapable of saying any more over the phone), of course, he is dead by the next scene.



Beyond the cliches, the writing itself is dumb from the very start: in the prologue, we see Madsen's character retrieve a cane that is being held in a church. Despite the obvious dangers of the artifact, it is only guarded by an ancient priest and isn't even hidden. The rest of the plot is riddled with idiocies, but it is wrong to criticize the movie merely based on the plot. The direction and dialogue are equally bad (and the effects are barely passable and display the low budget this film clearly has), but probably the biggest failing is Furlong himself, who cannot even begin to carry the picture; he has neither the presence nor talent.



Clearly, if you make it through this movie, you'll realize it is really just a cheap rip-off of The Devil's Advocate. Keanu Reeves may never win best actor, but he is light years ahead of Furlong in his ability to star in a movie. Similarly, Charlize Theron is easily superior to her counterpart (whose name I have already forgotten) in this movie, and Michael Madsen is not close to Al Pacino in his ability to ham it up. So if you want to see The Covenant done right, see The Devil's Advocate instead. Or if you want to see The Devil's Advocate (or horror movies in general) done wrong, watch this film.



"

Correct Plot Summary for this title

Keith Dann | Orlando Fl | 10/18/2006

(3 out of 5 stars)

"An ancient artifact in the form of a demonic cane unleashes a conspiracy of unspeakable evil upon humanity in this pulse-pounding horror thriller. After up-and-coming PR exec David Goodman (Furlong) is passed over for a promotion at work and blinded by a seemingly random attack in the street, he's willing to do anything to see again. Enter Guillermo List (Madsen), a shadowy acolyte of hell who promises to restore David's eyesight and ensure his climb up the corporate ladder if the desperate young man will pay the ultimate price: his soul.

"

Not bad!

MattW | Seattle, WA USA | 11/16/2006

(5 out of 5 stars)

"Although it looked as if the actors walked through the script, I thought this wasn't bad at all for what it was - basically b-movie schlock. Compelling enough to keep attention through out. Then again, this is the type of movie I love including all of the key ingredients - atmosphere, bloodletting, possession, and ample amounts of ridiculousness."