Movie Review: Paranormal Activity (2009)
Director: Oren Peli
Cast: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat
Plot: Katie and Micah (who play themselves) are young lovers who have just moved into the same house together, and Katie reveals that she's been haunted all of her life by paranormal activity. In an attempt to capture it on tape, Micah begins taping their lives and what happens while they sleep. The flick is basically a documentary-style flick of their lives during a two month period.

I had no idea what I was going to see when I was invited to check out this flick, but after having seen it and forming an opinion I'm noticing all of this hype around the flick. And I have to question why. Sure, the movie was shot for little-to-nothing over seven days, and it's generated all kinds of buzz in the film community. But aside from a few scary moments, the movie is a storytelling nightmare! I respect it for what they were trying to do, but trust me when I say that your life will be no less rewarding without having seen this movie.

From a pure storytelling perspective, the movie suffers from terrible storytelling issues, pacing problems, and plot holes. And if you have motion sickness (like me), then you will get ill during this movie. It's shot in the hand-held style reminiscent of The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield - but has no direction or story to really speak of. The set up is solid and the movie certainly has some scary moments in it, but I can't help but question a lot of the plot holes in a movie like this.


***SPOILERS***
For example, at one point in the movie she talks about how the "spirit" has always just watched her sleep and made bumps in the night, but once the ghost whisperer comes in he says that it's a demon and Katie admits that she's always thought this spirit wanted to do her harm. But if that were the case, then why would it watch you sleep? And why would it wait until this two-month period to gain enough power to do it. And in the end it doesn't even end up doing harm to her....

Another example is when they say that the demon has a specific purpose for it's hauntings, but this spirit has been haunting Katie for years. Long before she met her boyfriend, which is ultimately what we see the demon do damage to: Micah, the boyfriend. Why haunt the girlfriend for years when you're just after the boyfriend? This logic may make sense in demon town, but not in my world....
***END SPOILERS***


The character motivations bothered me a lot in the flick as well. After something scary happens at night, we see the characters during the day saying that they want to leave the house and won't sleep in that bed any more. Granted, the ghost whisperer tells them that moving won't stop the hauntings - but then they keep saying that the demon is in the house, so wouldn't sleeping at a hotel for a night at least give you a night of rest? - but then the next night or three nights later they're back in that bedroom again. Maybe this is an editing flaw, where they filmed all of the scary stuff in the bedroom and then later decided where to fit it into the flick. Perhaps DVD special features would enlighten us - but I'm truly not really interested enough to know more.

When they talk about having a demonologist come in and exercise the demon, they don't do it because Micah "is the man" and this is his house and he will protect her. But he's not really doing a good job of that, and after 2 weeks pass they still haven't called the demonologist. So the audience is supposed to feel bad for them when bad stuff happened? Because, I think they were asking for it at that point. And when they finally get around to it, it's just far too late and the guy's out of the country. There's not another demonologist that you could call? You don't have the internet or a phone book handy? It has to be that specific guy?

The characters make no bloody sense.

Honestly, I think the movie would've been better with the general set up, and then a bunch of shots of the scary stuff that happens at night. Make it a short movie, people will be freaked out, and there's less of a chance that you're going to 1) have poor character set up, plot holes, and contradicting motivations, and 2) that the audience is going to get ill from your sloppy camera work.

I won't hold the camera work against the flick (heck, I liked Cloverfield), but I don't want Hollywood to get confused with hand-held "shaky cams" as a style. This is not a style, this is sloppy. BattleStar Galactica uses a shaky cam as a style for setting tone and putting the audience in the situation. You use it in your motion picture and I just want to yell at you for making a home movie. This movie's success works against my arguments about Hollywood being sapped for ideas and that they should try tapping no-names to make flicks. That budgets ruin movies. You can make a great movie for next-to-nothing (ie: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog), but it requires a good story and people who've gone to film school and know what they're doing. Unfortunately, youtube.com has made us all think that we're talented enough to make movies.

In summary, the movie does not live up to the hype (not even when you haven't heard any hype about it before seeing it, like me), and is a very sloppy presentation with some scattered moments that are frightening - which is what we came to see, and it does deliver in spurts. But honestly, you could skip it and probably be for the better for it.

Labels: movie review, paranormal activity

Movie Review: District 9 (2009)
Director: Neill Blomkamp
Cast: Sharlto Copley
Plot: Chances are you've heard of this movie, or even more than likely seen it, so I apologize in advance for the lateness of this review. I had been eagerly awaiting this flick ever since I first saw a trailer for it. I went and found the short film that it was based on. I even re-watched all of the Halo movie footage that the director did as a test to showcase how he would shoot the movie (which has yet to be green-lit). I was so thirsty for this flick that, for some strange reason, I decided to hold off on quenching my need to see it.

What a mistake.

I should've been in a chair for a midnight showing with anyone and everyone who was willing to come with, and we could've basked in it's glory together...and then talked at length about the incredible subtext and messaging that litter this movie. But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself here....

District 9 is a movie shot somewhat documentary style (for about the first third of the flick) about an alien space craft that arrived on earth 28 years ago over Johannesburg in South Africa. The reason for their arrival is never really explained, but we humans come in and take them off their ship and force them to live in slum-like conditions on the ground. An organization called Multi-National United (MNU) is formed to police the aliens (the slur that they use for them in the movie is "prawns"), and the flick takes place during a relocation / eviction effort to get the aliens further away from people in the city.

Unfortunately you kind of have to have seen the trailer to understand why this is going on (although they very briefly touch on it in the flick), but ultimately the humans want to use the alien technology (specifically, their weapons), but the technology only works with the alien biology.

Enter Wikus Van De Merwe (Copley), the agent put in charge of the eviction. While searching a slum house "owned" by a prawn named Christopher Johnson, he discovers a cylinder that sprays him with a strange liquid, and he starts to get really sick. And it turns out that the liquid in the canister is starting to change his DNA. He's becoming an alien! Of course, this means that the humans want to slice and dice him up and figure out how to replicate it, so they can use the technology. Of course, he escapes and goes to live in District 9 where he runs into Christopher again, and the purpose behind the liquid is revealed. What follows is one of the most intense and awesome third acts that I have seen in ages, chop-full of all the kind of sci-fi action that you would expect from an R-rated foray into the depths of the human condition.

And as a good sci-fi should, the movie is littered with moral subtext commenting on the world we live in today, and the situations going on over in Africa especially. But even if you don't dive that deeply into it, you can still enjoy the awesome that is this movie.

When my brother and I went to go see this movie at the local theater, we accidentally walked into the wrong theater. As the opening credits for "Inglorious Basterds" started, a look of horror and disgust flashed across my face. In case you didn't know, I'm not a fan of Tarentino movies. My brother's face said something more like, "I could watch this," but I was not going to have it. I had been waiting too long to see this movie - telling myself that I was waiting because I feared a negative theatrical experience like I had with Watchmen.

[Remember everyone, the movie theater is not your damn living room]

Thankfully, the crowd was light and we were able to separate ourselves from the bulk of the people. The flick was everything that I thought it would be and more - and it's certainly something that I'm going to buy on DVD, if for no other reason than to check out the special features and commentaries.

If you enjoy good sci-fi, action movies, flicks with people and stuff blowing up all around, or just want to see something done in a very unique way, be sure to watch this movie!

Labels: district 9, movie review, sci-fi

Movie Review: A Perfect Getaway (2009)
Director: David Twohy
Cast: Steve Zahn, Milla Jovovich, Timothy Olyphant, Kiele Sanchez
Plot: On their honeymoon is Hawaii, two newly-weds discover that there's a killer on the island hunting newly-weds. And the killers themselves may also be newly weds. Enter three pairs of newly weds (or near newly weds): Cliff (Zahn) and Cydney (Jovovich), Nick (Olyphant) and Gina (Sanchez), and Cleo and Kale. All of them are on their way to a beach in the middle of nowhere on the island. All of them suspect each other. Paranoia ensues.

***SPOILER ALERT***

Other than the fact that I completely saw the twist coming miles before the big reveal, even after the movie has ended I'm a little confused about the "why." The motivation for the characters was never revealed. It all deals with identity theft in the highest degree, but why do it? I get that killing animals at a young age leads into serial killer behaviors later in life, but why take on other people's identity? And the guys says he's really good at it, yet we've only seen this one example - and guess what, he wasn't very good at it! Plus, there's a whole lot of confusion about the misdirection conversation to point the fingers away from the actual killers...which, why would you have that conversation when a flashback later reveals that in private you have different conversations? This is called "plot holes," and there are many.

***END SPOILERS***



The movie was an enjoyable ride that keeps poking fun at the fact that it's a movie. Breaking the fourth wall a few times was funny to someone like me, who understands three act structure and how story elements play off of each other. But the average movie-goer may not get it, and it could be frustrating for them - or boring. I do admit to waiting for this movie to start for a long time...and in the third act is when the movie gets going. In a BIG way! And it happens so fast and hard that you're barely left with time to ask the important questions that I posed above in the spoiler section, which is mostly "why" these things are happening.

The end is also where most of that R-rating comes into play. Before the third act it's some language and minor nudity (you get to see a butt, and some side boob), but once the killer(s) are revealed the blood starts free-flowing and there's a lot of hand stabbing. A lot of "oh snap" moments. And even a few "hero shots." Then the ending comes out of nowhere, and it's over. It's a bit disjointed, with a flashback montage to try and explain plot holes that don't really get explained (like the SAW franchise, it tries to be witty but to anyone who knows better, it's actually very sloppy).

Unfortunately, this nit-picking is going to make it sound like I didn't enjoy seeing the movie - which is not true. I enjoyed the flick from start to finish, despite the plot holes and short comings. It's very entertaining. And while it reaches at points to throw you off or make suspense where none is needed, it has a lot of fun fourth wall references and movie jargon (ie: There's a scene where Cliff and Nick are talking about Red Herrings, only Nick calls them "Red Snappers." Where a character is introduced to throw the audience off from what's really happening. And they actually call it out in the movie, because in that scene Nick is the Red Herring. It's funny to me, but may be lost on the average movie audience).

I got to see this movie as a pre-screening, so the free price tag may be influencing my opinion (it was worth the price of admission), but it is a fun flick to see. Not necessary for theaters, although there are a lot of very beautiful shots of Hawaii and the landscape. Far from a "must see" movie, though.

Labels: a perfect getaway, milla jovovich, movie review, steve zahn

Movie Review: Paper Heart (2009)
Director: Nicholas Jasenovec
Cast: Charlyne Yi, Michael Cera, Jake M. Johnson
Plot: An indie mockumentary (part documentary, part fictional comedy) about actress / comedian / musician Charlyne Yi (herself) interviewing people about love. She doesn't believe in it, herself, and doesn't think that she'll ever experience it, but during the heart-felt interviews and stories (told through hilarious and extremely cute recreations with homemade puppets) that she discovers all around the country with her "director" Nick (Johnson), Yi begins to form a relationship with actor Michael Cera (himself). The documentary that they're filming suddenly changes from finding what love is, to showcasing Yi's experience in this relationship with Cera.

This is the cutest indie romantic-comedy mockumentary of the decade, and I absolutely mean that! I ran the full gamut of emotions with this flick, and enjoyed every second of it. Yi is a delightfully awkward "one-of-the-guys" girl, and her journey in this movie is both entertaining and heartfelt. Granted, some of it is acting, but I haven't enjoyed going to a flick this much in ages!

Nominated for two awards (and winner of the Sundance Film Festival Screenwriting Award), this flick isn't officially released until August 2009. However, I was able to secure some free passes to this special screening, followed by a Q&A with actors Yi and Johnson (a Chicago native).

As magical and amazing as the movie is, I can't wait for the DVD. Yi explained that there was over 300 hours of footage taken for this movie, with more interviews with the children (which will leave you both jaw-dropped and in stitches), and several people not even shown in the final cut of the film. From the first interview, you'll be stuck to your screen watching this incredibly imaginative movie. Be sure to go see it in theaters - you will not regret it!

Trailer

Labels: aintitcoolnews, indie film, movie review, paper heart, sundance, sundance film festival