I haven't watched all 13 episodes (on DVD) of the Masters of Horror series, but I've seen many, and Jenifer is by far the worst of them ("Incident" is my favourite so far). From the acting to the editing to the writing to the score, everything about this production screams "amateur!" I'm not a fan of Argento, though I recognise he has rare moments of brilliance (the shot-through-the-keyhole sequence in Opera, for one), but even schlockfests like Goblin and Trauma are brilliant when compared to this torpid, lurid mess.
The first thing one encounters while watching Jenifer is the score; I have read many reviewers praising it for being atmospheric and distinctive, but - aside from the little-girl singsong la-la-la piece (which has been done already and to much greater effect by Jerry Goldsmith in Poltergeist) - the entire thing was a clunky, comedic ripoff of Bernard Herrman's Psycho soundtrack. Whenever Simonetti's music would play, I would just laugh.
Then there's the writing. I unfortunately did not catch this when it was an 8-page graphic story in Creepy magazine, but I can only assume it has lost much in the translation to film. As soon as the deranged man at the beginning says "you have no idea what she is," you know exactly how this is going to end. I am not against the cyclic, recursive morality tale out of hand - in fact, in the right hands, it can be quite chilling - but once you've watched this particular cycle play out, you'll find yourself wishing they had shown what happened to the deranged man at the beginning instead of the mishmash that is Steven Weber's story.
Everything about the story is implausible. When Weber first sees Jenifer, bound, disheveled, nearly naked, being dragged off by a cleaver-wielding madman, he waits two minutes before rushing to help her? (Oh, and she talks pretty good at this point - "NO, DON'T, HELP ME" - so where does all her speech go later?) Why would the deranged man write the creature's name (is it even her name, really?) on a piece of paper and keep it in his pocket? To help him keep straight in his head which of the nine mute, retarded, disfigured sexpots in his possession this one was? It's not even necessary for the plot to reveal her name this way, since the deranged man chokes out "Jenifer" in Weber's ear as he's dying (In fact, is it even necessary for her to have a name in the first place?). Then, when Weber goes to pick Jenifer up at the sanitarium, they bring HIM to HER while she's naked in the shower? Wouldn't happen.
And where are all the developmental scenes? Instead of showing Weber's slow descent into madness and destruction, he just suddenly starts drinking, stops working, and having sex with this creature. And don't get me started on the loose ends: what happened with the cut on Weber's hand? Same with the bite on his wife's mouth. And wouldn't the neighbours have been begging Weber for help finding their daughter, especially since he's a cop? And WHY is everyone so obsessed with this creature's body when it has no muscle tone and small, floppy tits? I don't get it.
These holes in the story are only made worse by incomprehensible editing. Many shots are cut super short, especially transitional ones, which you would expect to be longer. The commercial breaks are as painfully obvious as could possibly be (I was unaware of them in any other episode). And there's one scene, in which Weber drives to the country, that dissolves from a backseat view looking out onto a tree-lined rode in early afternoon...to a backseat view looking out onto a tree-lined road in early afternoon. No change in time, speed of car, position of occupants, or anything, just more of the same.
And then there's the insipid camera work. As I mention in the title, the only good bits to this piece are the ones stolen from other films, but even these are botched by everything I've already mentioned, plus uninspired frame composition. For example, when Jenifer comes upon the young neighbour girl throwing daisies in her yard pool (a clear homage to Frankenstein), the view is a full-body side-angle two shot, incredibly prosaic and boring. Why not have the camera high, looking down on the girl from behind, and let Jenifer come into camera from the bottom of the screen? A wasted opportunity, though good for a chuckle.
Finally, there's the acting. While in general it's much better than that of B-level "stars" like Adrienne Barbeau and Craig Wasson, the 12-year-old Linda Blair could have acted circles around these folks. Weber does a decent job, but it's pretty one-dimensional. We do see a bit of the revulsion/attraction conflict in his performance, but there's no chemistry between him and his "wife," and no sense of shame, embarrassment, or guilt over abandoning his family, and no hint at all as to what motivates him so strongly to help Jenifer in the first place (most cops are so inured to the sight of pitiable helplessness that they dismiss a case as soon as it's closed). A lot of the fault lies with the script...but then I guess that's what happens when you let a third-rate actor write it.
If you happen to catch this as a rerun on Bravo, go ahead and watch it - maybe you'll find something to like about it that I couldn't - but I definitely don't recommend buying the DVD, it's a waste of money...just like handing Dario Argento a movie-making contract.
The first thing one encounters while watching Jenifer is the score; I have read many reviewers praising it for being atmospheric and distinctive, but - aside from the little-girl singsong la-la-la piece (which has been done already and to much greater effect by Jerry Goldsmith in Poltergeist) - the entire thing was a clunky, comedic ripoff of Bernard Herrman's Psycho soundtrack. Whenever Simonetti's music would play, I would just laugh.
Then there's the writing. I unfortunately did not catch this when it was an 8-page graphic story in Creepy magazine, but I can only assume it has lost much in the translation to film. As soon as the deranged man at the beginning says "you have no idea what she is," you know exactly how this is going to end. I am not against the cyclic, recursive morality tale out of hand - in fact, in the right hands, it can be quite chilling - but once you've watched this particular cycle play out, you'll find yourself wishing they had shown what happened to the deranged man at the beginning instead of the mishmash that is Steven Weber's story.
Everything about the story is implausible. When Weber first sees Jenifer, bound, disheveled, nearly naked, being dragged off by a cleaver-wielding madman, he waits two minutes before rushing to help her? (Oh, and she talks pretty good at this point - "NO, DON'T, HELP ME" - so where does all her speech go later?) Why would the deranged man write the creature's name (is it even her name, really?) on a piece of paper and keep it in his pocket? To help him keep straight in his head which of the nine mute, retarded, disfigured sexpots in his possession this one was? It's not even necessary for the plot to reveal her name this way, since the deranged man chokes out "Jenifer" in Weber's ear as he's dying (In fact, is it even necessary for her to have a name in the first place?). Then, when Weber goes to pick Jenifer up at the sanitarium, they bring HIM to HER while she's naked in the shower? Wouldn't happen.
And where are all the developmental scenes? Instead of showing Weber's slow descent into madness and destruction, he just suddenly starts drinking, stops working, and having sex with this creature. And don't get me started on the loose ends: what happened with the cut on Weber's hand? Same with the bite on his wife's mouth. And wouldn't the neighbours have been begging Weber for help finding their daughter, especially since he's a cop? And WHY is everyone so obsessed with this creature's body when it has no muscle tone and small, floppy tits? I don't get it.
These holes in the story are only made worse by incomprehensible editing. Many shots are cut super short, especially transitional ones, which you would expect to be longer. The commercial breaks are as painfully obvious as could possibly be (I was unaware of them in any other episode). And there's one scene, in which Weber drives to the country, that dissolves from a backseat view looking out onto a tree-lined rode in early afternoon...to a backseat view looking out onto a tree-lined road in early afternoon. No change in time, speed of car, position of occupants, or anything, just more of the same.
And then there's the insipid camera work. As I mention in the title, the only good bits to this piece are the ones stolen from other films, but even these are botched by everything I've already mentioned, plus uninspired frame composition. For example, when Jenifer comes upon the young neighbour girl throwing daisies in her yard pool (a clear homage to Frankenstein), the view is a full-body side-angle two shot, incredibly prosaic and boring. Why not have the camera high, looking down on the girl from behind, and let Jenifer come into camera from the bottom of the screen? A wasted opportunity, though good for a chuckle.
Finally, there's the acting. While in general it's much better than that of B-level "stars" like Adrienne Barbeau and Craig Wasson, the 12-year-old Linda Blair could have acted circles around these folks. Weber does a decent job, but it's pretty one-dimensional. We do see a bit of the revulsion/attraction conflict in his performance, but there's no chemistry between him and his "wife," and no sense of shame, embarrassment, or guilt over abandoning his family, and no hint at all as to what motivates him so strongly to help Jenifer in the first place (most cops are so inured to the sight of pitiable helplessness that they dismiss a case as soon as it's closed). A lot of the fault lies with the script...but then I guess that's what happens when you let a third-rate actor write it.
If you happen to catch this as a rerun on Bravo, go ahead and watch it - maybe you'll find something to like about it that I couldn't - but I definitely don't recommend buying the DVD, it's a waste of money...just like handing Dario Argento a movie-making contract.