Paranormal Activity Review: Puts the "Super" back in Supernatural.

Paranormal Activity may have one of the least creative movie titles ever produced, but what it may lack in name quality it more than makes up for in its execution. Long have I waited for a “good” horror flick, considering most of the J-horror rehashes are just plain annoying, and I’ve finally got what I’ve been waiting for. Paranormal Activity may be a hit-or-miss for many people, especially considering its direction style, but if you’re a fan of scary films in general or at least loved Cloverfield or The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity may just be right up your alley.

Personally, nothing scares me more than phenomena pertaining to ghosts, demons, or otherworldly figures, which is primarily why I was so excited for Paranormal Activity. It tells the story of a couple living together, Katie and Micah, who experience strange, unexplained happenings in their two-story home. As a fun experiment, Micah buys a high-end video camera and sets it up in their room (along with walking around the house with it) to officially record evidence, although he doesn’t take it too seriously. Katie explains that whatever is haunting them has been following her ever since she was a child, so no matter where she goes, she hears strange noises and has horrible nightmares. After doing some research, Micah discovers that her haunting is actually the work of a “demon,” a creature who solicits joy from the torture of others.

Paranormal Activity will scare you.

That’s simply it. I went into the film looking for a fun and scary thrill ride, but what I got was so much more than that. This is possibly the best form of the hand-held digital camera style of filmmaking I’ve seen yet for multiple reasons.

Paranormal Activity does what most other horror films don’t: it involves the audience. What many horror films try and fail to do is tell a coherent story and rather than put you in the shoes of the victims, they act more like forgettable campfire ghost tales. Paranormal, on the other hand, treats you like a member of the couples’ experience, which is where the pacing of the story sets in so well. While many might find it annoying, the film starts off with Micah buying the camera, playing with it and teasing Katie; this kind of footage goes on intermittently throughout the film multiple times. The nighttime scenes, however, are where the gut of the film lies, demonstrating the demon’s haunting of the couple while they’re asleep. As I said, the interweaving of dull, daytime playful behavior amongst the couple may be boring and annoying compared to the incredible suspenseful scenes that occur at night, but the film would be nothing without them. You can’t have a horror film that scares from beginning to end; there has to exist a normal world that you can feel comfortable in, in order for shock value to take its place. It’s a lot like being in a relationship with someone; you can’t see them every second of every day because you won’t have time to long for them and be thankful for when they’re actually there.

Paranormal also sets up its own scene-by-scene formula which becomes obvious by the 2nd nighttime scene: daytime shenanigans, nighttime scares, daytime shenanigans, nighttime scares, etc. There are a few twists that break up that seemingly monotonous cycle, though, which definitely help. Even if you’re not a fan of the way Paranormal plays out, you have to admit it’s creative in its approach, intelligent in design, and original in that it knows exactly how to sway your emotions.

Acting is extremely well done, even for the “act like yourselves” mindset these actors retained. At all times, Paranormal feels like an experience or an actual documentary rather than a “movie.” In fact, there are no narrative parts to the story at all; it’s all told in its documentary-style realism. Anyone younger than 17 will most likely believe that Paranormal is actually a true story and will wet themselves repeatedly for fear of the same occurrences happening to them. Even if you don’t believe the story, though, it sticks with you and instills that realistic fear in you anyway. Director Oren Peli is masterful in the way he pulls the audience and manipulates them every which way, specifically with the actual characters. You begin to actually care about them because they do feel real and not like they were conceived artificially in a production studio. By way of the everyday comedy that ensues between them, the angry squabbles they get into and the pure emotion of fear they evoke, you not only care about their situation but you relate and connect with them.

The horror aspect of the film is fundamental at times, but enthralling overall. I would've liked the film to be a little bit longer and perhaps have a little more back story (there's a small explanation that goes deeper than what the film is on its surface, but its barely touched on and inexplicably introduced). Like I said, Paranormal involves the audience in ways rarely seen in cinema. Because it feels so real, it transcends the idiotic time-wasting efforts of modern-day horror flicks and enters a realm where it sets its own bar. Paranormal, above anything else, is smart. It rarely devolves to lowbrow cheap scares or predictability; in fact, most of the scares are predictable only in the sense that you know something is going to happen at some point, but you don’t know what, how, or where, exactly. Then again, that was the whole point of its own formula…you knew as soon as you saw the bed with the door open and the time stamp in the corner that you were in for something freaky to happen, but you didn’t know what. Especially fitting with its October release, it’s the perfect way to break up the monotony and drudgery that “horror” films have been giving us. It’s time to wake up, get scared and have fun; Paranormal Activity is low-budget filmmaking at its absolute best.

9.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

P.S. Steven Spielberg viewed the film on DVD at his home where he believed the DVD was haunted because moments after watching, his doors locked by themselves and he had to call in a locksmith to get himself out.
P.P.S. The entire film was shot, edited, and finalized in one week.

Saw VI Review: And you thought Hypodermic Needles were Bad?

Oh Saw, Saw, Saw. When will you end? To some, the Saw series is a never-ending gorefest riddled with inane story twists and preposterous concepts. To others, it’s the same thing…except they love it. Donning the 6th entry into the franchise this year, Saw has managed to stand the test of time and rake in the flow of cash year after year after dreadful year. But, we all know that just because a film makes good money and reels in audiences doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good (Transformers 2, I’m looking at you). Yet, there are the films that are both critically acclaimed and beloved by the average movie-goer (The Dark Knight). Saw’s track record hasn’t exactly held up prominently in either of these spectrums, considering people complain year after year about how “stupid” or “ridiculous” the films are, yet they still see them and critics still pan them.

But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? Films with multiple sequels, historically, fail little by little as time continues. Yet, in some cases (as with trilogies), the sequel can be just as good, or even better than the original. To this day, I hold the original Saw film in high regard for what it accomplished and how it embedded itself into pop culture and retained its shock value. The odds that any of the sequels will be better, or good in any regard, are low. I’m here to say, however, that 5 bone-snapping, skin-melting, eyeball-exploding, needle-stabbing, jaw-cracking, electrifying, shotgun-to-the-head films later, they got it right. They went back to the roots of the original Saw, and, albeit a new director, it’s helmed fantastically.

Unfortunately, even the original Saw wasn’t exactly a “great” movie. The sequels have only bludgeoned the merits of the original to death with what the people want: more gore. In fact, the tag-line for the second film was “Oh yes, there will be blood.” That’s pretty much the ultimatum given for the rest of the series in that every new entry has to do things bloodier, more disgusting and even more creative than before. Creativity is one of Saw’s strong suits; even if you hate the films, you have to admit that the contraptions and methods of execution are well-played.

Everything I just stated pertains to Saw VI in pretty much every way; it’s more vile and revolting than the last few entries. Of course, that’s completely debatable amongst the opinionated torture-porn enthusiasts among which film, or even which scene, is the most atrocious. Many may speculate that the film has absolutely no merit nor purpose of existence other than to cheaply disgust you as many ways as possible. This may be true, but it’s 99% of what Saw is supposed to be, and if you can enjoy a cheesy romance flick for the stereotypical and formulaic plot it retains, you can’t exactly knock Saw for what it’s doing.

So let’s get down to what Saw VI gets right and wrong. I won’t even touch the story; by now, as anyone who’s vaguely followed the series will surely vouch, plot holes remain abound. There are just too many things going on in the story that don’t make sense or are just so mind-blowingly improbable. Specifically, Jigsaw’s death has had pretty much no effect on the overall film’s plot. Yes, other people are technically carrying out his works and it moves the plot forward about as much as a baby can tip over Stonehenge, yet it still feels like it’s stuck 5 films back. The exact same things are happening and it has fallen prey to its own formula: teeth-grinding suspenseful nastiness in the beginning, title and opening credits, police investigation, introductory torture scene, then it fades in and out between the police’s involvement and the characters involved in the actual “game.” In this film, a man by the name of William Easton (Peter Outerbridge) who is a corrupt insurance salesman is pitted against various people in his life in a self-reflecting marathon of macabre choices. He has a “formula” of sorts to predict whether any given prospective investor in his company will live a healthy life, thus ensuring the success of that customer, or a risky life in which lawsuits and other trifles await. After denying a man insurance coverage for a surgery that would potentially save his life due to faulty information on his application, he becomes the next target of Jigsaw’s legacy. Because of his method of decision-making, he is given the ultimate test to let live or kill these specific people.

Now there is a fun twist at the end of the movie, but it feels a little cheap. That’s all I can say about that. While the background plot and the current story are wishy-washy at times, what matters is how it’s all carried out. From beginning to gut-wrenching end, Saw VI officially masters one element of its genre that none of its predecessors did so well: suspense. Every single scene has you in a state of constant deliberation inside your head of what you think is going to happen, how it’s going to happen and why. Sure, the ideas at large are pretty simple, but mix in the excellent execution of suspense and payoff with the creativity of it all, and Saw VI ends up being just as entertaining as it is preposterous.
Acting is sub-par, per usual, with the usual cast of nobodies playing the leading roles. Tobin Bell, however, remains fantastic and just as creepy as ever. Dialogue is a pretty dumb mix of expletives, yelling, and basic information-giving. Again, per usual, there’s no real attachment to any of the characters in the franchise. Perhaps at first, you felt a little remorse and sympathy for Amanda, but we all know how she turned out to be.

The film has an overall bleak tone. I’m not a fan of films that utilize a strange sort of tungsten filter while shooting (to give it that industrial and depressing “blue” look). Saw is a pretty ugly film to look at, from the dilapidated buildings to the unoriginal police. The only time Saw really shows its beauty, ironically, is when it’s at its ugliest. What you may be able to make out through your interweaved fingers or the corner of your eye is some really well-done bloody gory special effects. At times, it’s a bit ridiculous, but hey, that’s what Saw is about. In fact, it feels as though Saw has a sense of horribly dark humor which, ultimately, makes it that much more enjoyable. The film pokes fun at itself with its toe-deep, disposable characters, and it has every right to. For those of you who pan the film for being stupid, you’re in the right but you also have to be able to suspense your disbelief for a while. At least Saw keeps consistent with its inconsistencies; its brains lie within the scenes depicting the suspenseful doom-to-be, not the conspiracy-riddled back-story.

All-in-all, Saw VI is pretty much just going to be exactly what you’re expecting. If you hate the films thus far, you’ll probably despise this one just as much. If you’re like me and love the Halloween mood that Saw centers itself around, you’ll enjoy it. The Saw franchise is just one of those hit-or-miss deals; you either love it and stay with it or you loathe it and stay away from it. Either way, Saw VI is much better than the last few installments. I still hail the first as the best so far, but Saw VI just might be the best sequel. This could be attributed to new Saw director Kevin Greutert (who edited the past Saw films). The people behind the film know what they’re doing and certainly know how to rip the money right out of your wallet. As a standalone feature, Saw VI is just as bad as the rest of the series has been, but if you like Saw, it’s a breath of fleshy fresh air. The edge of your seat is your new best friend.

6.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

My Rating System!

Soooo sometimes, people question my reviews.

Duh. My reviews are opinions.
But a lot of people, when they grade a film or video game or book or whatever, usually just throw a number or letter grade at it and leave it at that.

Well, I'd just like to point out that my grading system actually does make sense. While I might not take the time to mathematically add, subtract, multiply, or bestow certain equations to certain parts of my review process, I do have a basically simple numbering system that is as follows:

10 - A masterpiece. A really rare score I'll give, or any other reviewer will give. Examples of films I'd give a 10 to would be Pulp Fiction, Slumdog Millionaire, The Lion King.

9.5 - Extraordinary. As close to perfection as a film can get. It may not certify itself as a "masterpiece" or critically important film, but it was close enough to it to earn extremely high praise and affection (at least from me). Examples include Tarantino's latest Inglourious Basterds, Wall-E, District 9

9.0 - Fantastic. A fantastic film by all means; just short of solidifying itself within my all-time favorites or highest recommendation, but certainly a movie most will enjoy emphatically, i.e. Star Trek, Iron Man, Moulin Rouge

8.5 - Amazing. A film I thoroughly enjoy and would recommend to anyone. It struck my attention in one way or another and certainly rose above my expectations, but perhaps just not quite high enough.

8.0 - Great. Awesomely enjoyable and worthy of commendation. Probably met my expectations, depending on the film. Definitely a film I'd recommend, but wouldn't go out of my way to.

7.5 - Good. Executed with enough talent and expertise for me to actually give a f*$% about, but not quite as good as it was made out to be. Probably had high ambition with little execution.

7.0 - Decent. Not bad...yet not quite "good." A film with about a 7.0 deserves to be seen if you're somewhat interested in its specific genre, otherwise, it could be passed over pretty easy.

6.5 - Average. Not terrible, but it disappoints. Not quite the award-winning film, but it doesn't suck. I'd probably only recommend it to specific people.

6.0 - Shoddy. Basically, the best "bad" you can get. Needs an exorbitant amount of work for any kind of recommendation from me. Then again, not the worst kind of movie you'll find.

5.5 - Below Average. Pretty hackneyed and, probably, pretty gimmicky. Awarded to films that just didn't really try hard enough.

5.0 and lower - Bad. Basically, if I give a film a 5 or lower, I really wasn't a fan. Chances are, it's probably a hit-or-miss type of film, striking certain audiences it appeals to (like adaptations to the original's fans) and completely flying over the heads of audiences it didn't care about. Also, it could probably just be plain bad.

I hope I didn't sound condescending or like I'm Roger Ebert or anything, because I'm not. I'm an amateur movie reviewer at best, but for anyone who actually does read the reviews I publish, I wanted to give a finalized grading system that made sense; hopefully, it'll give you an idea of what I pretty much thought overall of any given film.

Tadaa!

Zombieland Review: As Close to Zombie Heaven as you can Get

Vampires! Mummies! Zombies! Oh my! While the Mummy craze is pretty much dead and gone (being composed of only 3 films by the same people: The Mummy), Vampires and Zombies conquer the modern horror sub-genre. Vampires, especially, have grown in popularity quite significantly, what with HBO's True Blood series and the ever-popular "Twilight" saga, but Zombies of old and new are gaining more and more hype as days go by. Perhaps what will kick-start the neo-zombie movement is Ruben Fleischer's directorial debut, Zombieland.

As you could probably assume from the title itself, Zombieland is a film about a world inhabited by zombies, with few survivors remaining: Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), the "badass" rebel-without-a-cause zombie slayer, Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), the shy yet smart teen, Wichita (Emma Stone), the rambunctious teenager who trusts no one, and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), Wichita's younger sister who is as devious as she is cute.

Holy Hell, is it a fun film.

Columbus sets 30+ rules for surviving the post-apocalyptic world of the undead such as: always wear a seatbelt, always check the backseat, be careful with bathrooms, cardio and double tap. After traveling a while back to his hometown of Columbus, Ohio to discover the fate of his parents, he meets Tallahassee, who is driving down the road in a pseudo-armored Cadillac Escalade. They decide to travel together, and along the way they teach each other new things while encountering hordes of more zombies, as well as Wichita and Little Rock, both of whom like to scam and trick people into getting what they want. From there, hilarity ensues.

Zombieland is a film you can't judge heavily, considering its overall purpose is to serve as a silly slapstick comedy, smacked with a zombie label. At its core, though, its a witty parody of the zombie movie genre. It can be viewed as a B-movie exploitation film that populated the 60's and 70's if it weren't for its overwhelming self-awareness. While Zombieland is fun, fun, and more fun, it has its share of faults that hold it back from being the undead savior we've been waiting for.

First off, as I just stated, its self-awareness is blatant and just a bit impeding on what the film wants to be. Yes, Zombieland is a parody and makes fun of the zillions of other films it so gleefully rips off, and it knows it, which seems to be as much of a drawback as a push forward. In one sense, Zombieland would be nothing without its own sinister sense of humor, but in another sense, it plays off itself so much that it expands out of the "movie" realm and into the "look how funny this is" realm.

Zombieland also has its own sense of style, but falls inconsistent too many times. The "rules" that CGI themselves into the narrative are funny and fall into place rightly enough in the first 1/4 of the movie, but eventually are sporadically spread out through different scenes to the point where they're completely forgotten about but make an appearance just to remind you they existed. They were an interesting theme/motif at the beginning, but by the end, they're played out and uninteresting.

The four main characters, although fun, are relatively shallow. Columbus is your run-of-the-mill "ordinary world" hero archetype whose self-proclaimed phobias never really come into play throughout the film. Tallahassee is also your typical "badass" hero who loves guns and smacking the bejesus out of the horde of undead and doesn't like getting too close to anyone. The sisters, Wichita and Little Rock, are the most fun characters considering their deviousness and trickery, but ultimately they repeat a redundant pattern and eventually have their "turn around" moment of goodness.

The characters lead to the plot of Zombieland (as if it needed one). It's predictable from beginning to end. Sure, Little Rock fooled me the first time I saw her, but I figured out the sisters' calculating course after that. Also, the plot falls too formulaic by the end, with an unnecessary (and purely humorous) love story that only really develops at the very end; in fact, there's no real development of the connection between Wichita and Columbus other than the clearing of the hair over a girl's ear that he so whimsically desires to accomplish. Rather than subtle or progressive changing, each character has a big turnaround in their lifestyles within the last 15 minutes of the film. That throws off the pacing; that is to say, you will most likely enjoy the first half of Zombieland than the second.

The first half relies on style more than substance (naturally) to showcase the powerful filmmaking and ballet-style cinematography of the director and the cinematographer, which is where Zombieland has its golden moments. The opening sequences are extremely exciting, demonstrating slow motion gore and humor in ways never seen before. There's also a fun scene in a "Kemo Sabe" store that, if you're a fan of destruction, will satisfy your annihilation funny bone better than any Michael Bay flick. Then you start getting to the second half of the film, which attempts to finally blend style with substance, which every movie should do. Ultimately, it fails. The reason for the failure seems to be that the director somewhat forgot that Zombieland was an exercise in "coolness" and tried to put some real character development and emotional feeling into the fragment of a story he had. Of course, for any semi-serious portion of the film was an outstandingly funny segment in close following, so at least Zombieland never completely diverts from its core, but it does drive off-course enough to be relatively annoying.

All in all, you won't really care for the characters; if it wasn't for the comedy that each of them emit from time to time, you wouldn't be attached at all. For what Zombieland does right, it does right big. For everything else that Zombieland tried to be, which to me, felt like the perfect rounded movie, it dreadfully falls flat. I was excited to see the zombie-exploitative gore fest of fun, which I did, but not to the degree I was truly expecting. The sisters' stories bothered me the most, though; was it really that important to travel to a cheesy childhood wonderland? Of course, only to...well, when you watch the film, you'll realize how idiotic the ending was; it became an excuse for the slaphappy super-fun itchy-trigger undead destruction carnival to take place in an amusement park. When it comes down to it, a lot of the film just ends up using excuses to set up another scene instead of story progression or, well...logic. God forbid I'm ever stuck with a man who solely lives to eat a Twinkie when the apocalypse takes place. Enjoy Zombieland's extremity in the extreme for the first half or so, but try your best to sit through any of the slower parts toward the end...and also, turn off your brain: other than not getting eaten by zombies, you may be able to fully extract all the satisfaction you can out of this film made by the very same zombies by doing so. Zombieland is creative in its own right and certainly an entertaining popcorn movie, but it may have suited the Summer movie rush more than the Fall. The film is eye-candy, through and through, and that's it. While most may argue that Zombieland is supposed to be stupid-funny and its not trying to win any oscars, its an unbalanced bag. The writing is actually clever and fun, never diluting itself to tasteless jokes (ahem, Transformers 2), but the dialogue is the only part of the writing that really holds tight. Kudos to the style and cinematic powerhouse of direction and flare...negative kudos to everything else.

6.5/10