Paranormal Activity

Title: Paranormal Activity

Year of Release: 2007

Date Viewed: October 20th, 2010

MPAA Rating: R

Audiences have seen it all. How else can you explain why horror films draw such rabid crowds on opening night only to fade into its own darkness in the bottom dusty shelves? Audiences crave to be thrilled. To have goosebumps on their bodies and the gift of being kept on the edge of their seats. They relish these feelings so much that it has become awfully hard to impress. Unlike other genres, you can't really get away with borrowing old ideas and presenting them in a new package. Drama and action fans take comfort in knowing what to expect. Horror is only effective when it's unpredictable. Movies that telegraph its scares can still be entertaining if you're watching with a group of smart-alec friends that enjoy pointing out the shortcomings.

That is why marketing plays such an important role in drawing interest to your scarefest. Too much ticket money has been spent on blind faith. Now only movies with strong positive word-of-mouth press have any hope of raking in box office dough. If the newspaper critics give it approval, then it's a sure guarantee.

No other movie was marketed better last year than Paranormal Activity, the low budget "home camera POV" film that released in limited markets and expanded via fan demand. Indie film buffs became curious due to rave reviews and were intrigued by video footage of test audiences sitting on the edge of their seats and screaming out loud. That is exactly the sort of thing horror fans want to see. Strong early feedback and the knowledge that they will experience something unlike they have ever seen before. That's what the marketing claims, so it must be true. Right?

Paranormal Activity baits you in with an unusual concept. But its scares are as uninspired as Michael Jordan's halftime speech in Space Jam. It is smart enough to realize that fear of the unknown is greater than the fear of the known. However, you can only test the audience's patience for so long until they grow restless, as was the case with me.

Like The Blair Witch Project and many others before it, Paranormal Activity tries to sell you on the idea that what you are about to see is real. A dedication message takes the place of a traditional prologue. The message thanks the family of the people documented in this movie and the local police department for their cooperation. The movie even names the characters after the actors that play them. Was that an extra selling technique or was the writer just feeling extra lazy that day?

The characters are Micah and his girlfriend Katie. They recently moved into a middle class neighborhood that will hopefully give Katie some much needed peace. She had been haunted by what she believes to be demonic spirits all of her life. Micah is more amused than concerned by her predicament and convinces her to let him buy a new video camera to try capturing some of this paranormal activity on film and share it with the world.

The entire movie is seen through the camera's perspective. It is placed on their bedroom dresser and set up to record all night while the couple sleeps. Each following morning, Micah and Katie review the footage and take note of any unusual happenings. The events start off minor. A loud crashing noise is heard from downstairs. The door slams shut on its own. These events are unusual but not outside of rational reasoning. But then things start to get less and less explainable; such as how someone could sneak past their night security system, leave footprints on a pile of salt and vanish without any other trace. Is the couple's hired psychic just another cold reading nutjob or is there something going on that he is reluctant to fill them in on? Be prepared to ask a lot of questions and to use your imagination for the answers.

There is a specific resting point for the video camera that writer/director Oren Peli depends heavily on. He deserves credit for choosing the perfect location. Within its range, we have a stationary view of the entire bedroom and the open door to the hallway. My eyes darted back and forth across the room in a frantic way. There was so much to keep track of and I couldn't decide where to place most of my focus. Then I felt really silly when the realization hit that nothing had happened yet. It was possibilities that had me on edge.

The feeling of amusement didn't last very long. Like the villagers that heard the boy who cried wolf, I was tricked into believing that something was demanding my attention when it was really just a cheap ploy. If these ghosts that haunted the residence were serious about sending a message, they were doing a lousy job. Making noises around the house and knocking things off a kitchen counter is something a cat, a burglar or a cat burglar would do. It rivals the silliness from those reality television shows that follow ghost hunters at supposed haunted locations. The story is all in your mind. Paranormal Activity seems to take that motto to heart judging from its poor script.

Someone or something is trying to make Katie's life a living hell. We don't know why and the movie doesn't really care why. That would be okay if we were given a decent set of puzzle pieces to put together so that coherent story could exist. The movie offers about four pieces. So much for a challenge.

The finale delivers the real scares that everyone has to wait for. And to Oren Peli's credit, it's done very effectively. But it's not worth waiting through over an hour of uneventful "paranormal" activity, Katie and Micah bickering over whether or not filming the ghosts was a good idea or baring witness to some mind boggling actions from the two main characters. Why are they filming someone watching the footage from the previous night's events? The footage is already on that same camera!

It's ironic that the marketing that drove this movie to success depended on the same kind of misguided faith that makes these ghost spirits very real in the eyes of believers. Enough self-talk will convince you of anything. "I'm being followed." "I look too fat." "Paranormal Activity will be a frightening movie." Just keep telling yourself these things and they will all come true eventually.

Rating: 4

Jackass 3D

Title: Jackass 3D

Year of Release: 2010

Date Viewed: October 15th, 2010

MPAA Rating: R

When Forrest Gump coined the phrase "Stupid is as stupid does," maybe this is what he was talking about.

When Jackass first aired on the MTV network ten years ago, it quickly became the talk of the pop culture media and its stars became celebrities overnight. Some people were offended. While the stunts on the show were creative, they were far from classy and were often stomach-turning. It was seen as a sign of the times and an example of how low our standards for humor have fallen. Other people thought it was the greatest thing to ever hit television. Although each episode only had a twenty minute running time excluding advertisements, parties and social gatherings revolved around the anticipation of what these crazy people would do next. The network named their Sunday night lineup "Jackass Sunday" as a nod to its off-the-charts popularity.

Ironically, its popularity is what doomed the show to a short lifespan. Because a good portion of the programming revolved around the cast pulling candid camera style pranks on the general public, the success rate dropped to a low level because their faces were easily recognizable. Performing stunts became difficult too because of all the fans crowding around to see the action.

Jackass was given a much needed break before returning with grand fashion in 2002 as a feature length movie (which operated as a ninety minute episode). To compensate for their still existing popularity, many stunts were filmed in places where they were less likely to be recognized such as Japan. It grossed over eleven million dollars.

After the movie's release, the cast went their separate ways for a while. The series' main star Johnny Knoxville began a successful movie career while others became involved in spin-off projects that resembled the juvenile humor of Jackass. The cast reunited for a second film in 2006 that earned almost twice as much revenue as the previous project, proving that there was still an audience for the franchise despite the long gap in exposure.

Two weeks ago to this writing date, Jackass returned again, this time boasting state-of-the-art 3D effects so fans can get even closer to the messy action. As a long time follower of the group, my experience watching this is best described as jaw dropping, disturbing, disgusting, degenerate and flat out fun. In other words, it's exactly what a Jackass fan wants to see.

The premiere was held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, which should tell you a number of things. Among them should be that someone somewhere considers the stunts performed in this film to be artistic and that the definition of art is now more subjective than ever. In a strange way, I can actually see some of the reasoning behind it. Jackass has never been a project where a hand held camera was turned on and they filmed whatever they felt like shooting. Almost nothing is done "on-the-fly." Things are carefully planned down to the cast members' starting position to where the cameras are placed to capture the action. There are some stunts that don't even need explaining for the audience to know what is coming. One scene begins with a shot of Steve-O wearing only his underwear standing behind of a baseball tee that has a revolving lever attached to it. At the end of the lever is a metal ball the size of a standard baseball. And standing next to the tee is another cast member with a baseball bat in his hands. Put two and two together and you will quickly realize that what's about to happen will not end well.

Other stunts find beauty in the unexpected. In the opening skit, unsuspecting cast members are individually brought upstairs in an office building, thinking that they are simply fulfilling a delivery request. As they enter the room where the item is to be delivered, Jason "Wee Man" Acuna welcomes them with a shout-out of "High five!"; the signal. A gigantic hand comes swinging around the corner and the victim is knocked off his feet like a Looney Tunes character.

And then there's the material that is created to shock you with how sick and twisted the humor can be. The world we live in is so crazy that some people had an idea to launch someone trapped in a portable toilet high up into the air, video capture the volunteer and all the loose human waste that covers him, release the footage in a three dimensional format to give the illusion of being trapped in the toilet with him, and other people would pay money to have the pleasure of watching. Pushing the envelope is the key to drawing interest. It takes advantage of the public's desire to see something, anything, that they haven't seen before. It's shameless. It knows it. And most fans won't have it any other way.

The 3D effects bring new insanity to the madness. The hits are more painful and the gross stuff is extra disgusting. It does not however, make the stunts funnier. The "art" behind Jackass is all about the moment, not how one witnesses the moment. So by that reasoning, you can consider the 3D effects to be a luxury option for admiring the set-ups if you happen to get a high paycheck that week. It's certainly not mandatory for the laugh factor.

Here are some other things that can enhance the experience. Bring along friends. The more the merrier. If a particular stunt isn't appealing, you might still laugh at the reaction of another person. Have a good hearty meal at least an hour before the show starts and give yourself equal time after the movie. Just because the cast gets nauseous at times doesn't mean you have to. Keep telling yourself that it's okay to laugh at other people's pain. It was a risk they accepted beforehand. You have no moral responsibility here.

The last and most important rule: Never try any of these stunts at home. The movie is called Jackass for a reason.

Rating: 7

A Nightmare on Elm Street

Title: A Nightmare on Elm Street

Year of Release: 2010

Date Viewed: October 13th, 2010

MPAA Rating: R

When the news broke that the planned Freddy versus Jason sequel had been scrapped in favor of rebooting both of the respective horror franchises, I was disappointed and a little excited at the same time. Even though the Nightmare on Elm Street series had strayed far from his frightening roots in later sequels and often crossed the line into self-parody, I still found the Freddy Krueger character to be incredibly intriguing and entertaining even when the studios weren't taking him seriously at all. As far as the Friday the 13th series went, there was less to sacrifice and much more to gain. Its star character Jason Voorhees had a great look but acted as carbon-copy as horror villains could be. Any sort of reboot would be a step above the franchise that launched this character's popularity.

When the 2009 Friday the 13th movie was released, it killed (no pun intended) any optimism I had regarding New Line's decision to restart the franchises. Sure, it was better than the 1980 cult classic. That didn't take much effort. But it took no risks nor did it justify a reason to separate itself from the original series. It was a remake in name only and could have easily been just another sequel. If this dismissive attitude is what they had in store for the new Nightmare franchise, there was plenty of reason to worry.

After a good thirty minutes into watching this new Nightmare, I breathed a sigh of relief and realized that things were going to be okay. It reminds me how sometimes the production crew can make a bigger difference than the studio label. The movie won't be a classic but it does exhibit a surprising amount of respect for the path that Wes Craven paved to make this one happen.

The original setup hasn't changed. To the world, Freddy Krueger doesn't exist. But for a few select teenagers, he is as real as the bed they sleep in. One at a time, these kids get slashed apart while they dream, killing them in reality. After realizing that they all are dreaming of the same person, the survivors try to discover the meaning behind the madness in an effort to save themselves from becoming Freddy's next victim.

Freddy is played by Jackie Earle Haley, taking over the role made famous by Robert Englund who had played the character in all eight previous Nightmare movies. Unlike Jason Voorhees, Freddy has a personality and a dark sense of humor. This time around, the character returns to his roots in the way Wes Craven wrote him. He is more interested in making his victims feel terror than cranking out one-liners and chasing them through elaborate set pieces. His backstory is also given a more thorough examination through flashbacks. Freddy wasn't always a monster. He was once a normal human being, working as a gardener at a preschool. And he loved children so much that the parents would become concerned over how much alone time he spent with them. The concern turned into growing paranoia until one day Freddy found himself trapped in a warehouse with all the angry adult residents of Elm Street surrounding it. One of them throws in a burning torch that results in the building getting engulfed in flames with Freddy burning to death.

Save for an unnecessary revealing moment in the finale, we do not know if Freddy is really guilty of a crime or not. This assists in making his character all the more interesting. Neither us or the victims are quite sure what to make of this maniac who has somehow found a way to enter the dreams of all the children that he interacted with at that preschool and murder them in revenge.

Director Samuel Bayer does an exceptional job presenting the atmosphere of Freddy's nightmare realm. Especially when you take into consideration that his prior filmography consisted solely of rock music videos. Funny how a lot of rock artists seem to have an affection for horror films. Day turns to night and night turns to darker nights faster than it takes to realize that you have fallen asleep. What's missing is the doubt that the audience needs to feel over whether what they are seeing is reality or the dream world. The overblown shadows make it far too obvious when the characters are really in danger. So what lacked in the psychological scare department needed to be made up for in atmosphere and general anticipation of what would happen next. This is where the film is strongest.

The use of "jump scares" is the most overdone technique in horror films. It's the best way to get a six year old to scream and the best way to get a seasoned movie watcher to roll his/her eyes. In this sort of movie, it's actually a very welcoming feature. Still overdone perhaps, but it's necessary to hammer in the idea that we are watching a dream world. Think back to any nightmares that you may have experienced in your own life. Chances are, most of the time you were awakened with a "jolt" where you reacted to an event that would have been traumatic had the experience been real. The characters in this movie are "jolted" back to reality if they are lucky enough to survive the night. It's all part of the atmosphere psychology that's necessary to sell the audience into suspending disbelief.

Since so much focus was placed on the atmosphere, it also had to sacrifice development of the Freddy Krueger character. Even with the new backstory, I was still left wanting more. My wishes may be answered soon since it was recently confirmed that a sequel in on the way. It's clear that Haley studied the character closely and possibly even changed himself a bit to do him justice. Many of his lines were improvised and he has all the mannerisms down to the ever important claw threats nailed down perfectly. Having said that and no matter how unfair it may be, I think I still prefer Englund's work since he demonstrated such versatility with Freddy's personality. His unpredictable nature is a valuable asset to this "anything goes" idea that the franchise is all about. Haley and Bayer however still have time to swing my opinion.

For the always important death scenes, longtime fans of the franchise might be pleased to see some familiar scenarios being reworked with new special effects to improve its credibility. Others may be upset at the lack of new ideas. My hunch is that Bayer and the writers wanted to show appropriate homage to the series first before letting loose with their own creativity in future installments. I hope they do not make me regret giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Unlike the revisiting of the Camp Crystal Lake killer, this new Nightmare franchise seems to be heading somewhere. And better, it seems aware of what has succeeded in the past and what needs to be reinvented. When Freddy makes his next return to the big screen, let's hope to see some big dreamers behind the scenes with him.

Rating: 8

Robin Hood

Title: Robin Hood

Year of Release: 2010

Date Viewed: October 10th, 2010

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott reunite for the umpteenth time in a new variation of the Robin Hood legend. Just in case the trailer didn't make it obvious enough, there is no campiness to be found here. It's grounded and gritty but offers little that hasn't been seen before.

The film operates as a prologue of sorts. Crowe's portrayal of Robin Longstride is not of the famed outlaw that most pop culture aficionados have engraved in their minds. It is actually the story of his transformation into that familiar image.

As a soldier serving under the watchful eye of King Richard, Robin draws attention to himself after engaging in a brawl with a fellow comrade, his future right-hand man; Little John. When confronted about the situation, Robin takes the blame despite not being the one that instigated the fight. Sir Godfrey takes his questioning a step further and dares Robin to share his honest thoughts regarding the Crusade mission. He obliges and denounces everything, insisting that the last battle that claimed the lives of many Muslims had turned them all into barbarians. Insulted by the brutal honesty, the king confines Robin and his clique into the stockades.

In the midst of an attack, Robin and his crew are freed and Sir Robert Loxley is killed in the battle. Before passing on, he gets Robin to agree to carry out his dying wish; returning Loxley's stolen sword to its rightful owner; his father.

After this point, the film devolves into a rather vague setup of how Robin Hood leads an uprising against Sir Godfrey and becomes a rogue hero to Nottingham. Events are plentiful but most are not given the focus that they demand.

The movie works off a checklist. Lady Marion and Friar Tuck introductions? Check. Russell Crowe acting coldly in the way only Russell Crowe can? Check. An epic battle between the anti-hero and an army of carbon-copy villains? Check. An inspiring speech spoken by the anti-hero before said battle? Check. A final jaw dropping kill followed by a sequel invitation? Oh yes.

It feels more like Braveheart-lite than a Robin Hood film. I could have saved a lot of time and simply used that sentence in place of a full review but it would be an insult to the movie's professionalism. There is nothing wrong with Ridley Scott's style. He just needs to find a compatible dipping sauce to go with his breadsticks. Then he would really be on to something. You can argue that sauce is only a bonus item and doesn't really mean much if the bread is delicious enough. But you'd be ignoring the fact that the adventure genre is just as widely distributed as breadsticks. You need a special touch to earn a fanbase that can stay with you after the first meal or movie. Robin Hood doesn't have that. So it's just a generic breadstick.

The preceding weird paragraph was the result of A: Writer's block and B: Lack of nourishment today. Forgive me, folks. Sometimes these things are too overpowering. But maybe if the movie was interesting to watch, it wouldn't have been a problem.

A newer serious Robin Hood would have been a welcome addition had the result not ended up so cliche. Scott's efforts are admirable but there was too little to work with when it came to making a lasting impression. If the foreshadowed sequel does get produced, it needs to be bigger and bolder. Playing it safe is not always the best choice and I'm sure Robin Hood himself would agree.

Rating: 5

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Title: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Year of Release: 2009

Date Viewed: October 9th, 2010

MPAA Rating: PG-13

The following review has the potential to be mistaken for a thank-you card. There are times when my giddy affection for a movie can take over my objectivity. In the case this turns out to be one of those times, I would like to apologize beforehand while I am still sane enough to do so. In fact, I'll get my thanks out of the way first just to get it off the checklist.

Thank you, Terry Gilliam. I really needed this.

Set in London during an unspecified time period when everyone dressed in costumes more likely to be found at a Renaissance festival than the actual Renaissance, the titled Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) and his family of entertainers are the stars of their own traveling magic show, much like the kind found at carnivals. Except of course the magic is real. The Doctor's already extraordinary mind has the power to be linked to other minds. His show offers volunteers the chance to enter the Imaginarium room to explore a fantasy world from their own imaginations. A morality choice awaits them at the end of their journey. Making the correct choice would purify their minds and let them live life without care. The wrong choice would doom them. It's a system of conscious hypnosis.

Times are tough for the old doctor. And I mean OLD. His age is close to a thousand years. When you can brag that you outlived Yoda, you're the king of senior citizens for sure. How could he have lived so long? The trick is more complex than vitamin supplements. Long ago, he made a deal with the devil (Those never end well.) and won immortality. When he met his true love, a second deal was made that granted him youth. This one had a price attached. His first born child would become the devil's property when he/she reached the age of sixteen. The time leading up to the fateful day is soon approaching and the Doctor is mentally out of sorts. His fifteen-year-old daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) has her future hanging in the balance.

Following a show gone awry, the Doctor's family discover the body of a mysterious stranger (Heath Ledger) hanging from a rope underneath a bridge. After pulling him to safety, the stranger awakens without any memory of the events that led up to his attempted execution. He joins the cast of the traveling show and uses his charm to help maximize their revenue. Around this time, the devil returns to haunt the Doctor and claim his female prize. A third deal is wagered and it depended on the next Imaginarium volunteers. If five of them realize purification through their morality choices, Valentina will be spared. If five souls are collected by wrong choices first, Valentina will be collected.

The stranger's mysterious past begins to unravel at the most inconvenient of times. But he may be their only hope to influence five souls before the devil does.

Heath Ledger passed away before the filming of his scenes could be completed. Fortunately, the project was salvageable thanks to the story's fantasy rules. Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell all appear in different scenes as Ledger's character inside the Imaginarium. To maintain continuity, each of the stranger's journeys inside these worlds are explored through different personalities designed to sway each subject's soul to the desired rite of passage. According to reports, the work provided by the three replacement actors was motivated solely by their respect for the late Heath Ledger. No payments were accepted.

Ledger himself still seemed to be detoxing himself from his Joker role. Some of his mannerisms gave off an eccentric vibe that seemed out of place. But this was in no way a poor performance. He delivered the right kind of charisma that this "tweener" character needed to be liked by the audience and irritating to his companions.

If you're the type of film fan that values creativity over everything else, this is the perfect movie for you. Early on, the story clues us in that real world rules do not apply and anything could happen at any time. Within five minutes, we already watch our first spectator take on their quest in the Imaginarium. The entire movie is full of Terry Gilliam's trademark quirkiness but the Imaginarium scenes are what steals the show, even from the actors. It's like watching an art painting with vibrant color overtones coming to life. According to interviews, several real paintings were the inspiration for some settings. Some of my more purist friends would slap me for even suggesting such a thing, but I would have loved to put on 3D glasses to enter these wonderful worlds. The presentation style almost looks three-dimensional by itself anyway. Why not make it official?

How cool is it to see Verne Troyer get a decent role again? He's actually doing things instead of getting kicked around all movie long. Good for him.

The writing is pretty solid and only shows signs of disorientation toward the finale. While not bad by any means, the ending was doomed to be a letdown since it had such a tough act to follow.

This movie was such a great way to rebound my mood after watching the uninspired Remember Me the night before. After the film had finished, a special line of text appeared on the screen.

A film from Heath Ledger and friends.

Whoa, hold on a minute. Just exactly how many "friends" do I need to write thank-you cards for?

Rating: 8