It Follows Review

It Follows
Directed by David Robert Mitchell
Released in 2014

Somewhere north of Detroit, Jay (Maika Monroe) is treading water in her family’s above ground pool when she spots an ant crawling up her arm. Her expression is almost blank, lifted by a slight, dreamy smile — she could be thinking of her date with Hugh (Jake Weary) that night. She gently lowers her arm into the water and with it, the ant, which now squirms. Whether or not the filmmakers fished it out after completing the shot, the character that is “Ant” surely drowns. Jay meant no malice, nor is this scene the first in the portrait of a college-age psychopath. She probably meant nothing at all in the mere lowering of her arm. But death, miniscule as it may have been, resulted from that simple motion, and death will soon in turn follow Jay as a meaningless, inexorable force.

It Follows is an unusual and unusually memorable horror movie in that its monster is Newton’s first law of motion. Well, if you’re going to be picky, actual people assume the role of the monster, some of them innocuous in appearance and others not so much, like a creepy old lady in a hospital gown or a seven-foot-tall man without eyes. The monster cycles through so many dissimilar identities that the only constant is the way it walks — slowly but steadily — toward the person it has isolated to kill. It can be easily outrun if that person pays attention to his or her surroundings, and so becomes a paranoid wreck. But the monster cannot be stopped. In lieu of an effective opposing force, the person can pass the curse by having sex with someone else, and even then if it kills — in painful, gruesome fashion —the next person it will come back for the one before.

Jay is the lucky one chosen by Hugh, a handsome out-of-towner always looking over his shoulder, to next bear this terrifying burden. They have tender, consensual sex in the back of his car, gratifying for both involved. After, she talks of love in measured, shameless terms before he crawls on top of her and clasps a chloroform-soaked rag over her mouth. In an agonizing long take, her eyes dart in terror before she falls limp. She awakes tied to a wheelchair in an empty parking garage, where Hugh describes her raw deal. “All you can do is pass it on to someone else,” he says. For proof, he shines a flashlight on a nude woman walking toward her from a distance, and allows the figure to get real close before wheeling Jay, who is wearing only a bra and underwear, to temporary safety.

What may read as a convoluted update of the “Dead Teenager Movie,” to use Roger Ebert’s term for the slasher films primarily concerned with ogling at and then dismembering promiscuous young women, is instead a sly, nightmarish contemplation of mortality. David Robert Mitchell, who wrote and directed the film, suspends his characters in a dreamlike haze that downplays the logic, or lack thereof, of the monster’s behavior and the violent ends its victims meet. Jay’s emotional state, which ranges from bliss to knee-buckling helplessness, takes precedence above all, expressing not just a vulnerable body but also a maturing intelligence that for the first time grasps the inevitable outcome (take a guess) that meets all bodies, not just those stalked by naked weirdos. By foregrounding his protagonist’s inner life and cutting often to the talented, convincing Monroe in close-up, Mitchell instills It Follows with a sense of existential dread that lingers long after the credits roll.

Thankfully, Jay does not struggle alone. As she seeks a way to dispose of the monster once and for all, Jay is joined by her sister, Kelly (Lili Sepe); her friend, Yara (Olivia Luccardi), who snacks and reads Dostoevsky off a clamshell e-reader; the sexy, Johnny Depp-type neighbor Greg (Daniel Zovatto); and Paul (Keir Gilchrist), the boyish childhood friend who has long had a crush on Jay. The film captures a low-key camaraderie between long-time friends who realize they don’t have many more years of bumming around left. That togetherness is what keeps Jay going, as it does for all of us.

A pistol figures prominently in the final act, which is disappointing. Bullets are as fatal as Nerf darts in good horror, as anyone who has seen Halloween knows. John Carpenter directed that 1978 classic, and he is the unmistakable influence behind Mitchell’s style and Disasterpeace’s brooding synth score. Mitchell deigns to one jump scare (hey, Texas Chainsaw has one too), but for the most part he and cinematographer Mike Gioulakis engender fear from staring at still, seemingly (hopefully!) inanimate objects (i.e., a closed closet door) or having a figure simply walk from the background to the foreground. Mitchell finds the most horror in corrupting the familiar, and thus evoking the uncanny, which leads naturally and unpretentiously to questions of mortality, public versus private space and deceptive surface appearances.

It Follows’ creepiness is hard to shake because its world is so close to normal, so open to growth and pleasure without shame. Gun flailing aside, these young adults are smart enough to recognize that this monster is undefeatable. It is a force they must find a way to ignore for as long as possible until they are ready, one day, to face it on their own terms.

This article was written of The Cornell Daily Sun.

Alien

This is the first post in Film Stock, a series of reviews appreciating the greatest films of all time. In the spirit of the just-released Prometheus, inaugurating this collection is Ridley Scott’s 1979 opus, Alien. A choice like Casablanca would be more classical and an essay on The Tree of Life would appear more legitimate, but I would like to start with a film that is a masterpiece by all accounts yet also thrilling entertainment and a hallmark in modern moviemaking. Film Stock will update periodically, as per my schedule (I don’t get paid for this, after all). The criterion for a film selected is at least two (often more) viewings several months (often years) apart. I aim to cover a wide range of film history. To prove this, no Christopher Nolan … for now.

Alien

Directed by Ridley Scott

Released in 1979

What I would give to know nothing of Alien and watch it again for the first time. Unfortunately, that can never happen. I imagine few people are out there [reading this] who do not know that scene — that scene, when the whole movie changes. If you have no idea what I am getting at, by all means stop reading this and watch this movie untarnished while you still can. But for the rest of us, the alien — later labeled “xenomorph” — and its gruesome method of reproduction are as close to public domain as R-rated science fiction can reach. There is no scene in film history with such an unexpected punch. Psycho’s shower scene. “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” “Nobody’s perfect!” Alien’s Last Supper owns it.

It speaks to Ridley Scott’s brilliance, then, as to why watching Alien for the third time the other day, with the same foreknowledge of the twist as my first viewing, remained as shocking as ever. For that infamous dinner scene, in particular, the suspense relies mostly on the framing of the shots. Scott does not rely on quick cuts to artificially escalate tension; he sustains a shot on Parker (Yaphet Kotto), Dallas (Tom Skerrit) and the ill-fated Kane (John Hurt, perfect as always), only to cut to his friends dining around him. None of them realize what is really happening until it happens, or even after. The characters are not fleshed-out to the extent of a character study a la Raging Bull, but the agonizing, sustained duration with which Scott forces us to watch Kane’s brutal demise, and his friends struggling to save him, defines corporeal and emotional pain.

Consider that it takes about an hour to reach this point. It is a horror movie, and there is not a drop of blood until it is halfway done, and truthfully not much after that. As the alien picks off the remaining crewmembers, most of the deaths are depicted off-screen (shadows against a cat’s head, for instance) or through rapid, almost subliminal shots of gore (usually the alien’s phallic inner mouth pulverizing a head). One of the most notorious jump scares in film history — Dallas’ trek through the ventilation system — is also one of its most craftiest, fooling the viewer with a tracking shot that focuses on the foreground, only for Dallas to illuminate the background with his flashlight and *!!!* *static*. Scott tells the story from the parceled viewpoints of the Nostromo’s inhabitants, only quickly cutting when a vantage point, no, when a friend, has been terminated. The steady pacing, before, during and after duress, is the film’s secret weapon, acclimating the audience to the ship’s confines and acquainting us with our fellow humans, who we are powerless to save. We just watch. Or don’t.

With Sigourney Weaver’s prolific acting schedule in the many years since this film, often starring as a yappy bureaucrat or fast-talking heroine, it is easy to forget this understated performance in her first leading role. Aliens would give her more lines and cement Ripley as the quintessential female action hero. But here Weaver tackles the part without any camp, transcending the admirable benchmark Jamie Lee Curtis set in Halloween two years earlier. Scott certainly dreamed of greatness for Alien, but his dreams only came true with Weaver’s talent and willingness to break ground beside him.

What a remarkable character they created. Ripley revolutionized Hollywood and all those who watched and continue to watch her. Without Alien, we may not have ever seen Clarice Starling, Sarah Connor or Beatrix Kiddo.

Here was a woman, beautiful she may be, not typecast as the clueless female caricature awaiting her male savior. She organically takes charge above her peers, each of whom could surely do the same (except Brett (Harry Dean Stanton) … poor Brett). But only Ripley had the foresight of the fatal contamination Kane’s alien contact would wreck and the strength to persist with such a tough verdict, even if the literally corrupt Ash (Ian Holm) bypassed her wishes. And only Ripley made it to the end, not by superiority or radical political correctness, but because she was coarse enough to think like the alien and take the bitch out herself.

Some feminists decried the sexualization of Ripley once aboard the escape vessel, when she takes off her clothes aboard the escape vessel she believes is safe. “Stripping her narrative competence with her uniform,” Vivian Sobchack writes in Alien Zone, a collection of essays on science fiction cultural theory, “Ripley no longer represents a rational and axesual functioning subject, but an irrational, potent, sexual object — a woman, the truly threatening alien generally repressed by the male-conceived and dominated genre.” Whoa now. Sobchack makes a good point on the ‘uncovering,’ be it will, of the true woman, who is also alone and captured in low, voyeuristic camera angles. But she does not see the true critique and brilliance of the sequence, where Ripley must adorn the spacesuit no woman had worn to the point, become the ‘man’ and kill the hermaphroditic male rapist for good. 

With such subtle imagery, Scott is not substituting Ripley for a male surrogate to win the day but thrashing the expectations the sci-fi audience already conceived for her character. The little striptease is almost sinister in its intention: For the first time, the film incites cheap arousal from the predominantly male voyeurs yet then reintroduces the sexually relative monster and robes Ripley in men’s clothing for a bloodless finish. Scott’s provocation makes for the most satisfying unsatisfying climax in thriller history, no pun intended.

Someone with a familiarity in art history, design and sculpture could speak in more impressive terms, but as a construction leader of my high school production, I know the work it takes to create a set and Alien’s little world is a fully realized, nuanced masterpiece of the craft. The utilitarian hallways Ripley sprints down, with their monotonous pipes and wires that run in stark contrast to Star Trek’s primary colors. The stark geodesic bubble where crewmembers access the ship’s computer, Mother. The resistance of the failsafe levers that Ripley fails to overcome in time. Overwhelming with detail, the Nostromo’s design stands an unparalleled achievement in art direction to this day. Scott, who had a hand in the visual design with Roger Christian, Leslie Dilley, Stan Winston and the essential H.R. Giger, makes love to the set with his camera. Every scene captures an area of the ship from a new viewpoint. The lens flare illuminating the crew during the ship’s descent likely inspired J.J. Abrams. It is a grimy, empty, dreary ship, yet never a depressing or boring view.

There is a complete universe inside and outside the Nostromo. Today, that means “sequels!” and it did in 1979, too, as three successors bore the Alien name over the next 18 years. While James Cameron’s Aliens remains one of his greatest accomplishments (among many, I should clarify), it is a decidedly different film, expanding the mythos while losing its mystery. Meanwhile, the final two films fumble a little too much with their legacy. Alien, Ridley Scott’s perfect film, one with Jaws and Psycho, transcends its genre with multiple levels of meaning on image and soundtrack. Like Spielberg and Hitchcock’s best, the thrills survive without attention to its politics or ideology or aesthetics. But they are all there, ripe for discovery upon each viewing, dealing naked thrills and scary truths.

The Thing Review

The Thing
Directed by Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Released in 2011

Hollywood’s current state can be summed up with the 2011 version of The Thing:  it is a remake, of a remake, of a film, based on a novella, about a replicating ... thing. The recycling program in the movie industry that prefers to shun inspiration for silver screen adaptations of such winning comic books as Jonah Hex has made a remake of a remake, folks. Technically, it is a prequel. Reused scenarios and exact shot compositions speak otherwise. Director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.’s (this recent flood of Northern European directors tests even the eloquent) modern take on the horror staple borrows so liberally from John Carpenter’s 1982 classic that there are bound to be moments of near-greatness. Not only is the genesis of these segments lifted, however, but the entire film lacks the sparse, humanistic touch that made the original remake (did I just say that?) the gritty masterpiece it is to this day. 

The source material, traced via carbon dating to John W. Campbell Jr.’s 1938 novella Who Goes There?, remains one of the strongest in the horror canon.  Part of its continued appeal lies in its setting, at an isolated scientific base located in Antarctica. Chances are you or I will never set foot anywhere near the ice continent, so a film focusing on a group of scientists holed up in a base there provides an odd source of exoticism. The inclusion of a highly advanced alien lifeform only compounds such interest. Frozen in a million-year-old block of ice, this thing is uncovered from its gigantic spaceship and brought back to the base, where it obviously wakes up from its long sleep to wreak havoc (if Terminator 2 taught us anything, it is that cold = stubbornly alive and hot = dead as dead). By that measure, the humans wield flamethrowers to torch the beast, or, more accurately, the many disposable humans it infects. 

A bloody witch hunt ensues, with the monster revealing its tentacled, shrieking self reliably for maximum gore and minimum wonder. Carpenter’s film utilized models, puppets, and animatronics that shocked and nauseated because they were undoubtedly on the same plane, there on the same soundstage. The CGI sheen of this film robs much of the realism for more elaborate, and in turn less believable, Thing-flailing, impaling, and face-morphing effects. There is a sequence where flamethrowers roast a series of Things that cascade from one person to the next. Such liberal violence, and on-screen depictions of it, desensitizes the audience to a point where it simply becomes an action movie. 

An action movie loaded with cheap scares, that is. Van Heijningen exploits the jump scare to its last cliched leap. You likely will be able to predetermine the exact moment the bogeyman appears through the submergence of ambient sound and the familiar cadence that follows. The terror of the film exists moment by moment and does not pervade, live in the atmosphere. No dread constricts the narrow, monotonous hallways;  the psychological trickery Carpenter played by never assuring anyone as safe is absent. The windy Antarctic wasteland surrounding them does not look cold enough. And the journey into the flying saucer comes across as just unnecessary. The design of the ship’s interior combines Cowboys & Aliens’ generic hallways, video game Prey’s organic, fleshy walls and an inexplicable fountain of pixels into one anachronistic, needless sin of feng shui. 

Van Heijningen (the director if you’re losing track) can be blamed for the superficial scares, but screenwriter Eric Heisserer (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Final Destination 5 ... this is making sense now) attempts to mend the gap by emulating the 80s version to a fault. Scenes that copy from its inspiration build suspense effectively for they have done so before. When Kate (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) organizes a test to determine who’s human and impostor, anxiety indeed grows. There is something much less badass, however, with shining a flashlight into someone’s teeth to check for fillings (the alien cannot replicate inorganic matter, blah blah blah) than jabbing a flaming rod into a dish of each person’s blood only for the infected one to literally scream when touched. Last time I checked, dental checks do not belong in any horror film not called Marathon Man. 

R.J. MacReady is a name any horror buff will recall. Kurt Russell’s legendary beard in the 1982 version may be responsible, but the film built a strong protagonist who thwarted the menace with ability and genuine frustration. The characters this time around lack any distinguishing qualities. In fact, I do not even recall their names. Lost’s Mr. Eko - that is what I called him - played by Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is tragically underused. The script feeds Eric Christian Olsen’s character such needed lines as, “It’s inside,” after an exterior window breaks off-screen. Mary Elizabeth Winstead from Scott Pilgrim exceeds the laughable standards now set for females in horror films, but she is no Ripley either. Eric Heisserer’s jumpy script can be held accountable, which raises the question as to why a better writer was not chosen.

I step back and ponder why they made this Thing. John Carpenter updated Howard Hawk’s 50s Marxist allegory for modern audiences 30 years ago. What else needed to be said? It does not offer a modern take on the worn story aside from updated computer effects. I enjoyed some of it, yes, particularly the end credits sequence that, rather heavy-handedly, tied this prequel’s story to Carpenter’s universe. It roused the few Thing fans there were in the audience. Universal is learning the tough way that this franchise is not a money earner. That both the 1982 and new films share in common. The former was released just two weeks after E.T., and no one wanted to see an alien that they thought loved Reeses Pieces feast on human flesh. Which reminds me: E.T. ... we’re due for an update on that cash cow by now aren’t we?

Final Verdict: 

2 Stars out of 5




This review was originally written for The Cornell Daily Sun and can be viewed at its original location via this link.

The Antithesis Of Twilight

With high-priced dreck currently filling the theaters, and unfortunately making enough money to assure the continuation of said trash, what can a poor boy do? The Last Airbender and Grown Ups are just slow, agonizing trainwrecks condensed to a film reel. Same with almost everything else out there, with Toy Story 3 as the only, very notable exception. So, what is left? Another installment in the Twilight series, this one called Eclipse, was just released to a critical beating, but that did not stop the lines of eager teenage girls from making this film another commercial smash. What gives? This franchise does not capture the real essence of vampires and werewolves, so I instead watched two films that did. These two were Daybreakers, an interesting take on vampire mythology, as well as The Wolfman, a modern retelling of the classic "werewolf" story. The results were mixed, though I am sure I enjoyed them much more than a sparkling Robert Pattison.

Daybreakers:
Directed by Michael & Peter Spierig
Released in 2009


What if vampires ruled the world? Now calm down, we are not speaking of dreamy boys who are willing to fight to the death over a pretty, disillusioned girl. This is the real deal:  pale, cold creatures with fanged teeth who fry upon sunlight, disappear in mirrors, die when struck by a wooden stake to the heart, and, of course, drink human blood. Their real, sole advantage is that they can live forever (as long as not encountering an aforementioned obstacle), which entices the majority of the world to convert to Transylvanian ways. Well, it is 2019, and humans, the vampires' irreplaceable life source, are running out. The majority of them are "farmed" in grotesque machines that slowly harvest blood from their bodies,  while the rest are constantly on the run from the vampire hunting squads, in a fashion not dissimilar to the Nazi's Einsatzgruppen. Well, Edward Dalton (Edward, really?), played by Ethan Hawke, has found a way to cure vampires of their condition completely, but how does a world so entrenched in their sinister ways switch back to normalcy? Many lives must be sacrificed as a result.


And, boy, do those people die in fantastic, shocking ways. Countless vampires and humans alike are torn apart, impaled, exploded, burned alive, decapitated, disemboweled, or otherwise bloodily disposed of with frequency. This violence is not going to be seen in an Edward/Bella love story (little girls would be scarred for life), and a scene of mass chaos at the end more resembles a blood orgy than the furtive, "I vant to suck your blood" style of Bela Lugosi.  Any reason for watching this movie will center around the action and, while it takes awhile to actually occur, the ending will more than suffice any gore junkie.

However, while the action starts slow and ends in full, bloody glory by the end, everything else seems to start promising and just end an incoherent, sappy mess. The intriguing premise of the film is wasted by a vapid, slogging middle section that tries to insert uninteresting and failed character development in favor of any appealing action. Apparently there is romantic tension between Edward and human Audrey Bennett (Claudia Karvan), but the pair's acting is usually too stilted and wooden to achieve any emotional resonance. Hawke is a curious Hollywood case as he does not fit any real mold. That is fine, as his performances in Gattaca and Training Day can attest to his range of talent. But here, he is neither truly tough or the underdog you root for, leaving his character bland and unremarkable. For instance, he insists on not drinking any more human blood to account for his growing sympathy for the dying race. When did he have this epiphany and why exactly? These questions are not explained, a fault to the script, and it seems that Hawke is unaware of what his character is supposed to be feeling as well. Sam Neill appears as the dark, soulless antagonist and Willem Dafoe is entertaining as the human with a mysterious past. They both suffer from laughable lines but, hey, you have seen these two actors before and they fill their parts just fine. 


Daybreakers, as a whole, fails to meet the expectations I had for it but it should appeal to anyone who is just looking for a gorefest and nothing more. These are not high standards by any means, so that is why I raise my benchmark for quality. The writing and acting is just subpar, while the ending is plain ridiculous, as if the screenwriters ran out of paper and did not feel like refilling their printer.  It's not that it leaves lingering questions, which it does and is still a fine ploy in my book, but it fails to deliver any closure and comes out of nowhere. This film shows how easy it is to come up with an enticing premise, but also how tortuous it is to devise the most important part: your final impression. 

Final Verdict:
2.5 Stars Out of 5

The Wolfman:
Directed by Joe Johnston
Released in 2010


If you think about it, Hollywood has not devised a memorable, original monster for years now. With the exception of Heidi Montag, when was the last time a new creature shocked audiences? Most of today's supernatural monsters are ripped from comic books or simply retouched versions of Hollywood classics. The latest in this cycle is The Wolfman, an updated version of the 1941 horror classic. Basically, a werewolf terrorizes a Victorian England town and infects the protagonist, causing him to undergo a grotesque transformation from man to beast.  This story has been told millions of times before, but because the original Wolf Man was one of the first to do so we should give the modern update free reign to stick with its ancient formula, right? Well, that is what the screenwriters, Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self, believed and the result reflects this unoriginality rather slavishly. 


The star of the film, Benicio del Toro, plays Lawrence Talbot, the ill-fated "hero" whose quest to kill the beast ends up, literally, biting him in the neck. He sets out to dispose of the werewolf after it brutally kills his brother, leaving him and his brother's widow (Emily Blunt) alone, while also bringing them together, if you get my drift. Lawrence's father, Anthony Hopkins as total fromage, has a complicated history with his surviving son, so the events between them after the infection are mysterious, to say the least. The bloody death of his mother during his childhood allows Lawrence to start to put together the pieces of his strange family. 


There's nothing wrong with exposition, especially well-crafted character development, but sometimes it is better to get to the hard-boiled fight scenes.  Unfortunately, this film, just like Daybreakers and countless other mediocre action films, dabbles far too long in tedious scenes of characters conversing in bars or walking through Victorian streets. By the end, Lawrence was waltzing through London with a tophat and cane; I was too delirious to make any sense out of it. It makes me wonder:  do the writers and director really refuse to believe that anything in their film may be flawed? With some editing, this could have been a tighter, more succinct film. Or with better screenwriters, every verbal exchange could have had some more biting wit or philosophical punch with it. 


Saying all of this, there are reasons to watch The Wolfman. Sure, the story moves along at a plodding pace and the script is laughable, but it is worth mentioning that this film is beautifully shot. The cinematography (led by Shelley Johnson) may be the film's brightest aspect, as the foggy pastures and villages of Victorian England come alive with the right blend of cinematic precision and grim obscurity. The Bluray release will please any visual connoisseurs, as will Benicio's fur coat, made with a mix of involved makeup application and computer effects. I am not a fan of most CGI in films nowadays, as I feel most of it looks cheap and detracts from any sense of realism or grittiness, and while this film suffers from exactly that at times (digital bear? why?), the Wolf Man's look is strong and captures the raw essence of the character without too much ostentatious visual flair. The violence is your typical bloody, R-rated fare. Expect more decapitations, disembowelment, the works as the werewolves in this film do not simply kill their enemies but destroy them. Some of the bloodshed is unnecessary (ripping out livers is a little...much), but it should appeal to the horror film junkies this is aimed for, even if the film itself is devoid of any real scares besides one or two closet jumps. 

As for the acting, which should be high considering the talent at hand, do not expect much. Benicio del Toro plays his role well, though there are certain scenes where he lacks any enthusiasm or emotion whatsoever, such as his first appearance where he listlessly performs Shakespeare. Forgivable, but, then again, this is the Oscar-winning actor from Traffic and Sin City. The same can be said for Anthony Hopkins, who hams it up in this role that was clearly just another paycheck. He looks much more Saint Nicholas than Hannibal Lecter this time around, and his penchant for staring blankly into the camera and delivering prolix speech without much conviction makes his performance less than remarkable. Emily Blunt, on the other hand, fits her role well, as she already showed in The Young Victoria that she can excel as beautiful, privileged Victorian women. The script sloppily attempts to jam in a romance between her and Benicio, and it basically fails on all accounts, but her performance remains solid. Hugo Weaving (Mr. Smith(s) from The Matrix) is a London investigator, with an interesting fate, while Max Von Sydow stops by for a scene to give Lawrence a deadly cane. The acting vacillates from pure cheese to satisfactory, if unremarkable, efforts; it is neither below nor above the average expectations. 


The Wolfman is basically mediocre:  not terrible nor is it that impressive, it rests comfortably in the middle. It has a half-decent story, with half-decent acting to accompany it, along with impressive werewolf effects that are balanced with a terrible script. It suffers from many of the same problems as Daybreakers, as its strong opening quickly tumbles to the ground due to the screenwriter's incompetence to create a complete, compelling product. Certain parts of The Wolfman will appeal to classic horror film fans, but it is nothing worth howling about. 


Final Verdict: 
1.5 Stars Out of 5

This Is It and Paranormal Activity Reviews

There have been two movies as of late that have gotten a lot of attention for one reason or another. One is a tribute to the King of Pop, the one and only Michael Jackson, while the other has been declared the "scariest movie ever made." I found that only one of these two actually lived up to the hype. However, since they are shorter and, while not undermining the artistic merit of either of these films, less deep productions, I decided to write shorter reviews for both of them.

This Is It
Love him or hate him, but Michael Jackson was one of a kind. From his roots in Gary, Indiana, where he started the Jackson 5 with the rest of his family to the days of Thriller and Off The Wall and until his tragic, confused death, no other individual ever made such an impact on pop music as MJ. As a tribute to his legacy, This Is It seems like a money-grabbing attempt at the countless legions of fans who want to see what Michael's final days were like. However, much to my surprise, this movie turned out to be surprisingly enjoyable and perhaps the best tribute that could be made.

This Is It's premise is simple:  take the footage of Michael's rehearsals for his planned reunion tour which was filmed all just weeks, days or mere hours before his death, and add some interviews and stylish editing to top it off. Honestly though, it works. The movie can be labeled a concert film considering that about 75% of the on-screen action is singing or dancing but it keeps you engaged throughout with great pacing and effects. 

The music is the star here, and it does not disappoint. MJ sings most of the songs with an energy that strictly contradicts his supposed sickly state of the time, considering he hits most of the high notes with relative ease. Basically all of his classics are here, with "Beat It", "Billie Jean", "Human Nature", "Thriller", "Wanna Be Startin Something" and many more. For songs such as "Thriller", filmed sequences in graveyards were filmed to be used as a backdrop for the concert action. We see the filming process and the intricacies involved, though obviously most of the detail will probably be included in the Ultra Super Collector's Edition of the film which is bound to be released.  The "Smooth Criminal" scene is fantastic, blending scenes from Humphrey Bogart's film Gilda with the, well, smooth criminal that is MJ. At the end, or even in the middle, of some songs Michael will stop to note something he wants changed or improved upon. He was always a perfectionist and this film truly shows how he wanted everything to be just right for his final shows. 

There is no look at Michael's troubled life or death in this film whatsoever. It is all about the music, and the lives he touched throughout his life. Interviews with backup dancers and musicians all gush over what Michael brought to their lives and the effect he made on them.  The director, Kenny Ortega, obviously saw the greatness in Michael as well and worked hard to make this concert be the best it could be. Unfortunately, it never happened. After watching this rehearsal footage you can only wonder what could have been. Seriously, this would have been one of the most elaborate, and probably best, tours ever done if it could have followed through. But, in the end, we are left with this tribute alone, and it achieves its job and then some by reminding us all of Michael Jackson's legacy in a positive, loving light.

Final Verdict:
4 out of 5 Stars

Paranormal Activity
Well, there is not much to say about this film besides the fact that I was disappointed. I do not know why I even anticipated much, though the claim that this was the "scariest movie ever made" definitely enticed me into seeing it. However, I never was genuinely scared or really spooked. I was interested in it, but not in a very attached way.

Basically, Paranormal Activity is the story of a couple in Los Angeles who experience various "hauntings" in their bedroom at night. The boyfriend installs a camera and documents everything Blair Witch-style, as the whole movie is in the handicam format. I am not an advocate of that type of filmmaking (Cloverfield was not a big hit for me) but, in this case, it does work to some extent. With the lack of any real special effects and the bare bones budget of $15,000, Paranormal Activity is taking the raw approach and an acknowledged, cheap camera can get the job done. Once the movie gets going (there are no opening titles or credits), it becomes very formulaic. A night passes by and we see the strange footage of things that happened. Micah (the boyfriend) and Katie (the...girlfriend) observe the footage and freak out. It is quite a bore for the first half or so as nothing really occurs of much significance besides an extremely cheesy appearance by an actor playing an expert at psychological and spiritual affairs like the ones the two are experiencing. I will not spoil anything else that happens in this film but I will say that I never was scared in a way that I anticipated. This seems to be a trend too; only the really, really sensitive will be genuinely freaked out by this. The ending is a bit of a disappointment too. Too anticlimactic, gimmicky and cliched to leave a good impression.

Overall, Paranormal Activity is a movie that really benefits from our current forms of communication (Facebook, Twitter, etc), because it has been making rounds on the Internet and claiming the spoils with a near $90 million domestic gross as of this writing. This may be the most profitable movie ever made in the long run. Still, Paranormal Activity is a shallow film that will be all the buzz now but never thought of again a few months down the line. It may be worth seeing it to just experience it, but the experience really is nothing special.

Final Verdict:
2.5 Stars Out of 5 

Drag Me To Hell Review

Drag Me To Hell:

Directed by Sam Raimi

Released in 2009

For a movie that is poking fun at the current horror movie genre, Drag Me To Hell ends up being one of the best horror movies in recent memory. Its mix of campy violence, witty humor and genuine scares make Drag Me To Hell an entertaining, compelling film.

The overall premise is simple: Christine, played by Alison Lohman with a full committal to her role, is living a nice life until Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) comes along. This old, gypsy woman requests Christine for an extension on her mortgage. Christine decides to deny the mortgage in hopes of a promotion but Ganush, in her fury, casts a dark spell upon the poor girl, the curse of the Lamia. The Lamia stalks its victims for three days until finally bringing them down to eternal hell. Christine has no plans of eternal suffering and goes to great lengths to rid her of the curse. The film is brilliantly paced and just moves; this film will hook you from the beginning and not let go until the end. And what a finale; I could not have imagined a better way to end this movie and it combines equal parts humor and pure terror to leave the viewer shocked as well as satiated.

In a horror movie like this one, acting is not a field where this film will usually, or even necessarily have to, excel in. However, Drag Me To Hell has an excellent lineup lead by the lead actress, Alison Lohman. As an innocent girl with a (literal) hellish burden put upon her, she performs her part with a great mix of typical horror film naivety, pure terror and pissed-off badassery. Lohman even goes to disgusting lengths such as swallowing maggots in her full dedication to her role. Christine's boyfriend is played by Justin Long and is just what you would expect from him. He doesn't really believe his girlfriend's struggles and has bigot parents to boot. This role is not new for him but Justin Long is a likable actor and he fits the role with ease. As well, Lorna Raver as Mrs. Ganush is excellent without a doubt. Her makeup transforms her into a menacing, demented gypsy who haunts Christine at every turn. There is even an extended fight scene that involves her brawling with young Lohman. Clearly, Mrs. Raver put a lot of effort into her role. Another prevalent actor in this film is Dileep Rao who plays Rham Jas, the seer who can see Christine's troubles. He is a likable character who only has limited screen time but ends up being one of the few, real good guys in the film. Basically, the acting is better than expected and a big part of why this film is better than most horror films this decade.

However, what really sets Drag Me To Hell apart is its style. There is a certain campiness to it that was clearly the brainchild of Sam Raimi, the director, looking back to his early days of Evil Dead. The violence, especially for a PG-13 film, is shocking yet somewhat hilarious. At one point, Christine spouts blood from her nose like a fountain, with people around her viewing it as a minor distraction. Clearly, the violence is meant to amuse, not repulse. That being said, there are various forms of blood and bile liquid flowing throughout. Furthermore, its self-deprecating look at the horror genre actually lends it an advantage. Many situations are full of the typical cliches such as a dead flashlight, shadows under a door, or closet jump scares. It works though; this could be attributed to its excellent directing or driving pacing. It never plods along at a slow pace. Countering this humor and convention is real horror. There were many times throughout the film where I was actually creeped out by its Lamia spirit or Mrs. Ganush, even if I may have laughed at them afterward. All in all, it is very interesting how Drag Me To Hell blends comedy, parody and horror all into one creation that seems original as much as they may have been done before.

To sum up, Drag Me To Hell is a fun, wild film. It keeps you hooked, regaled and even spooked throughout with no time to breathe. Add in the surprisingly good acting and one of the best endings I have seen in recent memory and you've got one of the finest horror films of the decade. 

Final Verdict:

4 Out of 5 Stars

Zombieland Review

Zombieland:

Directed by Ruben Fleischer

Released in 2009

Zombieland does not reinvent the wheel. A hybrid of a zombie and romantic comedy, Zombieland takes a lot of influence from films before it such as Shaun of the Dead and even the similarly titled (as well the career launch pad for one of this film's leading actors) Adventureland. However, it works because of its execution. The cast - with a pleasant surprise - fit with one another in a practically flawless manner, and the comedy and action are very well-balanced.

Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is a kid on his own with a certain set of rules for surviving the zombie apocalypse. His OCD mentality is restricting but effective, as he has survived longer than most on Earth. He eventually runs into Tallahassee, played by Woody Harrelson, whose gun-ho approach strictly conflicts with his reserved attitude. Nonetheless, they join forces to survive until they run into the sly sisters, Wichitaw (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). Their uncertain motives put the two males down often, but Columbus knows he has an attraction for the older sister (Stone) and she does too. The chemistry between the two is very good and similar to the Eisenberg-Kristen Stewart relationship from Adventureland. From me, that is a compliment. Emma Stone, more commonly known as "Jules" from Superbad, is in a similar role here but brings her own sexy charm and back-stabbing attitude to make it a fun role. Abigail Breslin is in her best role since Little Miss Sunshine as a tough girl despite her small appearance. The real star of the show here, however, is Woody Harrelson. An underrated actor in many regards, Woody constantly brings a rough, humorous approach to almost all of his roles and this one is one of his finest. Tallahassee directly contrasts Columbus's conservative approach and that really highlights his talents. He will casually, yet brutally, take down a zombie, laugh at rednecks' obsession for guns, grow furious at a Hostess truck for lacking his ultimate treat, Twinkies, and even grow emotional when his real reason for roaming the wastes of the US are revealed. This film has shined the much-deserved spotlight on Woody's career again, and the commercial and critical success this movie is experiencing can only foretell good things for his long-running career. Overall, the casting in this film is spot-on and its finest aspect.

However, the joy and carnage this film conveys through its story and action are also very notable. The film starts out as a typical zombie comedy, with countless undead killing helpless humans while Columbus's narration explains what they did wrong and how he avoids their mistakes. The opening is actually pretty brutal, with plenty of appendages either decaying or being eaten, and the huge bursts of blood are not for the faint at heart. The credits sequence, played to Metallica's epic "For Whom The Bell Tolls", is similar to Watchmen's as it contains many slow-motion scenes of carnage while still conveying a pseudo "history" of the zombie events (more like a collage of action honestly). Once the romantic interests are introduced, however, this film takes a long break from zombie action all together and focuses mainly on its comedic laurels. To some, this may seem like an unwelcome approach but I found it a perfectly fine way of mixing the movie up. The film's conclusion contains plenty of action so it ends up being very balanced. In around the middle of Zombieland, there is a certain cameo whose identity I will not reveal, but he (a hint at least) ended up being my favorite part of the film. He is a universally-loved actor anyway, and seeing him again is a pleasure for practically anyone who will being seeing a movie called "Zombieland."

All in all, Zombieland takes lemons and makes damn fine lemonade. You may have tasted some of it before, whether it be in the consistency or tartness, but it brings back good memories and is the perfect cure for thirst on a hot day. In this case, the hot day is the current slough of movies that really make this film stand out. Even without these limitations, Zombieland is an excellent zombie film and one of the year's better comedies. Its careful borrowing of older ideas end up working because of the stellar execution in almost every regard. The acting, action, dialogue, comedy, cinematography....it all works. And I am more than satisfied with that.

Final Verdict:

4 Stars Out of 5

Jennifer's Body Review

Jennifer's Body:

Directed by Karyn Kusama

Released in 2009

There really is not much to say about Jennifer's Body. Starring Megan Fox and written by Diablo Cody (Juno), the expectations are already set. Could this be the next high-school slasher film? Is the Academy Award-winning Cody going to strike gold again? Is Megan Fox still hot? The answer, with the exception of the last, is a resounding no.

As for the basics, Jennifer's Body is about the story of Jennifer (Megan Fox), the high school "it girl" who is drooled over by the male students and knows it. She teases them with their desires but *usually* doesn't give in. Her best friend, Needy (Amanda Seyfried) is a nerd but still is Jen's best friend, despite their physical and emotional differences. The problem comes when they both go to a bar one night and meet a Indie rock band called "Low Shoulder," with Nikolai (Adam Brody from the OC). A fiery event ensues and Jennifer is mysteriously whisked off with the band. She returns later to Needy's house in an emaciated form but, the day later, she is perfectly fine. It turns out Jennifer has turned into some demon/zombie that must feast on humans to keep her lustrous look intact. In this case, she chooses boys.

Jennifer lures countless different high school boys into her (literal) grasp by acting slutty but then, of course, disposing of them in gruesome ways. Unfortunately, these encounters are never scary or even sexy enough to get much of an impact, relying on horror movie cliches for "shock" value. For example, a boy walks into an abandoned house with absolutely no one on the street. Must be fine, right? He proceeds to climb through a window in the back of house that is under construction and gets freaked out by a crow that is inside the house. What happens next doesn't even need to explained; you know already. The violence is not even that graphic, as death scenes only involve shadows with blood splattering on walls or after views of murders that have humorously disfigured bodies with unreal excesses of blood. It's typical teenage slasher fare and not much more.

The script, with Diablo Cody of Juno fame at the helm, is nagging and vomit-inducing in itself. The worst part of Juno, the so-called "witty" dialogue, returns in full force, making expressions like "what the blog?" seem like child's play. When Jennifer is all bloody she says, "Got a tampon?" or, instead of using the word "jealous," Jennifer calls a boy "jello" and then repeats it five more times. Jen's final line is so ridiculously stupid I am not going to even repeat it here. I wonder how Diablo Cody won an Oscar in the first place and this movie should hopefully put her away for good.

Now, the acting. There really isn't much to say here, as well. Megan Fox is still sexy but incapable of much talent. It is definitely a step up from Transformers and, who knows, she may have a movie down the road where her sex appeal isn't the only thing that gets her by. But, in this film, Fox provides many laughs, usually unintentional, and is a very unconvincing demon child. Amanda Seyfried as Needy is merely okay, looking drastically different from Mamma Mia! from 2008. She still is an attractive actress even next to Fox here but her acting also relies on typical horror movie conventions. Her narration also can be grating, though this is more related to Miss Cody than her. Needy also has a boyfriend called Chip who is played by Johnny Simmons. He has a Zac Efron-style haircut so he can talk with a drawling, chill voice right? Well, the fact that he is never seen with anyone besides Needy (the names are starting to make sense...), pretty as she may be, begs to differ. A more nervous, uptight Chip would have been a better fit and probably provide a sense of comedic value but, as it stands, his character is actually decent. He provides a few funny one-liners and he is really the only other main character of the film, and the only male one at that, so he stands in rough territory. Adam Brody makes an impossibly stupid appearance as "Low Shoulder's" singer, not blinking an eye when a fire is blazing next to him or trying to reason that the devil is an indie rock band's best chance at success. Whenever he appears on screen, a guaranteed facepalm is bound to follow. The veteran actor here is actually the best. J.K. Simmons, the excellent character actor from Juno, Spiderman and Burn After Reading, is here as a one-handed teacher who provides most of the laughs or even emotion. Of course, his time on the screen can amount to maybe four-five minutes tops.

Truly, there is not much more to say about Jennifer's Body. The acting, script and story are all vapid or uninspired, but that is not even its biggest problem. The ultimate obstacle this film runs into is its severe identity crisis. It doesn't really know what it is or wants to be. There are not many laughs, there is not much horror, and there is not much sex. I actually had hopes that this film could have one or more of those three and executed them in an admirable way but, wow, was I wrong. Girls will probably not know the point and boys will be disappointed by the lack of the title star's "body." So, really, what is left?

Final Verdict:
2 Stars Out of 5