Paranormal Activity 2 Review: If it's not Broken, don't Fix it... but Feel Free to Tweak It.

Paranormal Activity 2 (PA2) is a tricky film to review accurately; it really blurs too many lines and it a lot of ideas will simply come down to a difference of opinion/preference between people. Much like its predecessor, PA2 will divide a lot of audiences between completely loving it and thinking it's ridiculously scary and intense, hating it and think it was stupid from the start, or just liking it in general without really leaning in a "it's stupid" or "it's genius" way.
_________________________________


This review may contain mild spoilers.
_________________________________


To start off, if you weren't Paranormal Activity 1's biggest fan, you probably won't be transforming your hatred into love any time soon. PA2 builds upon the original premise with, essentially, the exact same formula. Then again, I wouldn't completely advise haters of the original to steer away from the sequel, considering it at least attempts quite a few new ideas and techniques that weren't present in the original.

The biggest addition is the series of surveillance cameras set up around the rather large house instead of just the one handy-camera like the original; however, note that there is also handy-camera footage in this installment just like the last one in addition to the stationary cameras. This idea and these scenes are brilliant and definitely add a new level of depth to the regular sequence; not only are there more scenes to take in, but they're being shot 24/7 and are never tampered with. Therefore, the scenes that are a bit obscured from the handy-camera footage are in full view, sound and all, with the surveillance cameras. Unfortunately, they're not really used to their full capacity; there are scenes where, for some unknown reason, a handy-camera is used to capture footage that is already being recorded, much more reliably, by the surveillance footage. The surveillance cameras were installed after an assumed "burglary" in the home, and are used to review whenever strange events occur, but when said strange events do occur, it takes a bit of time for anyone to realize or be coerced enough to actually look at the footage. Logically, that might be the first place you look when someone gets locked out of a house or, I don't know, hears a thunderous bang or alarmed barking of a watchdog somewhere away from your immediate attention. Also, one of the cameras virtually has no purpose, considering nothing ever happens in its point of view.

The next big additions are the elements of an infant character and an animal. These characters could go so many different ways and add completely new dimensions to the 2-similar-character didactic. This is a full-fledged family: mom, dad, daughter, baby son and dog and even a maid! The baby, Hunter, and dog, Abby, are extremely similar in that they see and experience certain things that no one else does or can (like seeing something otherwise invisible). This seems to be where their roles stop, though. Their only real purpose is to give you the chills when they react to something you nor the other characters can't see. Hunter's role is vital due to his relevance within the film's mythology; that is, PA2 and PA1 are connected in sequence and play into each other's plots. The dog, although lovable, is almost completely useless if she didn't give an excuse for a pivotal plot point to take place later. Both characters could've been utilized to a much greater effect, but were not. Hunter's very existence is for the shock value of having a baby being the main character in a a potentially violent, scary film.

The environments are more varied this time around, with a swimming pool being the most radical change. Again, none of the scenes are used to full potential with what could have been done; this rings especially true for Hunter's nursery, where a giant in-your-face-mirror (which provides opportunities aplenty for a horror film) is hardly utilized other than reflecting some scenery that seems harder to see due to the surveillance camera's placement.

Another important fact to note is that many scenes from the trailer(s), and I do mean many, are not included in the final product, or at least in the final product I viewed. I'm not entirely sure if audiences around the world are seeing the same exact film, so my opinion of the film may be skewed a bit.

The script is weak. Weak weak weak. Far too many scenes exist where certain pieces feel forced and extremely scripted in a context that's meant to feel the exact opposite. Lines feel downright corny and some scenes play out in a generically cliche manner. It's tough to deduce whether the actors are the ones screwing up with, well, bad acting, or if the writing was just pedestrian. Luckily, most of the scenes are actually acted out pretty well; anyone who might think the acting was awful should realize that these actors are most likely using their own personalities as models for their characters. Everything is supposed to be "realistic," more or less, and it tends to feel that way. This is largely due to the "normal" look of the actors; you won't see any caked up models or chiseled chins around here. The characters seem like perfectly normal people that you could/would encounter in every day life, and they react to situations in the same way many of us would. Then again, a good chunk of their reactions are questionable and a bit unrealistic, but unless you have encountered a demon in your home, you can't really pinpoint exactly how you would handle things.

This all being said, the scares are what PA2 will most heavily be judged upon, and thankfully scares abound in this sequel. Although many of the scary moments are simply startles, with some dynamic event taking place on-screen accompanied by some boisterous thud, there exist a few golden moments of sheer suspense. I'm not saying it takes overwhelming amounts of talent to have almost no noise present and then just smack the nearest hard object, but it does take talent to do it repeatedly and keep you drawn in. This is where PA's hate-it-or-love-it formula kicks in: within every static shot of a scene, you're basically playing a miniature game of "Where's Waldo?" except, of course, you're playing "Where's the Creepy Slowly Moving Thing in this Shot?" This will either try your patience or excite you upon seeing the quintessential Day/Date caption on a scene; personally, I enjoyed it. To me, it gives the viewer a bit of interactivity by, in a way, "playing along" with the film's formula. In the original PA, the only place you could really look closely for activity was the doorway, otherwise the action you needed to see would be blatant. In PA2, there are at least a few different pieces of each set to pay attention to, like something swaying from the ceiling, a doorway exposing a shadow or a mysterious light or wind emanating from a window. There's also a ton of foreshadowing and allusion, which is fun to catch when you see certain things later on. One of the biggest gripes I had with the first PA was that, although I loved it, it wasn't a very re-watchable film. It's great once and it's great to watch with the uninitiated, but the scares become contrived and there's only so many times you'll jump at something. With PA2, this is practically the same idea, but at least there's a few things here and there to look out for. Another crucial element of the PA series is a somewhat ironic one in that waiting and closely listening are the most exciting parts of the film. Just because nothing is actually going on on-screen doesn't mean nothing is happening in your mind or within your attention span.

All in all, PA2 isn't any sort of triumphant victory as far as sequels or horror films go, but it's definitely a good sign for the series. It utilizes enough new material, albeit not to its full potential, to at least draw in audiences and get you talking. It's still just as suspenseful and the ending is just as, if not more brutal and poignant than PA's. In order to truly enjoy the film, it's necessary to put yourself in the film's atmosphere and not just anticipate the gimmicks. Believe that the film is recovered footage from a haunted house and believe these characters do exist and, most importantly, don't expect anything specific to happen once the nighttime scenes take place. You must also remember that part of the fear of anything paranormal-related is the whole mystery behind it. Forget how any events occur or even why the phantasm is performing them and be more concerned with the fact that anything "spooky" in the film is even happening at all. Follow all these steps, and you'll most certainly enjoy the film for what it is as it helps usher in a new brand of horror films.

8.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

The Social Network Review: Socially Awkward is the new Cool.

I'm going to be honest: The Social Network was getting rave reviews way before it was even approaching its release date. Buzz about it being this year's Best Picture and all that jazz were already working their way through the media, and no one had even seen the film. Of course, this is largely due to the film's relevance: that is, it's 100% relevant. The film is about Facebook, I mean, who doesn't have a Facebook? Your grandmother probably has a Facebook and doesn't even know about it.

If your grandmother suffers from Alzheimers, and this is why she doesn't know she has Facebook, I deeply apologize for the misunderstanding.

And thus! The Social Network is born from famed director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, starring Jesse Eisenberg of Zombieland fame as the "protagonist," if you will, Mark Zuckerberg. Social Network is a modern story of how that blue thing on our computers that we hate and love came to be, and how much trouble Mr. Zuckerberg got into while producing it. If anything, The Social Network is an allegory for almost any "unknown father" scenario, starring Mark Zuckerberg as the troubled mother and Facebook as the emotionally scared child...

Bad analogies aside, The Social Network is most certainly a work of art. Just because I got hype left and right about it for so long doesn't mean I was immediately going to dismiss it. In any case, Social Network has impeccable pacing, one of the best scripts I've ever experienced, and an extremely talented cast, making it one of this year's best films by far.

The story follows Facebook from its baby steps all the way to when it became the world-wide phenomenon we know today. The path of a Facebook is a trying one, however; the film is framed within two separate lawsuits. One revolves around the idea that Mark completely stole the concept of "Facebook" from two brothers and their friend while seemingly working on that same project for them. Without them knowing, Mark developed his own code and invented what he wanted to, claiming that he didn't steal the idea but simply improved upon it. Of course, he wouldn't dare give any ownership to the other party, considering they had nearly no input on his project.

The other lawsuit is between Zuckerberg and long-time best friend and business partner Eduardo (Andrew Garfield). I don't want to spoil why there's a lawsuit there in case you haven't heard Facebook's history, but this is really the more important of the two framing plots and the more interesting by a long shot.

I have no idea what Mark Zuckerberg is like in real life, but as a cinematic character, I loved him. He's cold, he's witty, he's relentlessly insulting and he plays by his own rules. Eisenberg definitely puts the "cool" in "school" with his portrayal of the antisocial mega nerd, and you may hate him and yet want to be him at the same time. Endearing performances abound from the rest of the cast, however, including Garfield and even Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker, the fictional version of Shawn Fanning, founder of Napster. There exists very little input in the film from female roles, however, which may strike some as strange. The only real female characters are Brenda Song as Eduardo's crazy (but relatively unimportant) girlfriend, Christy and The Office's Rashida Jones as Marylin, a lawyer-to-be who sits in on the lawsuit between Mark and Eduardo and gives some commentary from time to time. Otherwise, this is a boys only movie; the film almost treats women as just objects (if it weren't for a female-empowering scene at the very end of the film).

But I digress, all the quips from Zuckerberg are quick strikes. He insults and defends himself with ease, and makes looking like a nerd who creates a multi-billion dollar empire by the age of 26 a breeze. As alienating as he may be, he's likable and pretty relatable; other than being the bearer of a 298,441 IQ, he's just a regular college kid like many of us are, have been, or will be. He eternally strives to meet girls, and he likes to feel invincible and completely independent. This side of him becomes attached to us, while his Harvard background is the part we get to see unfold on-screen. His best buddy Eduardo is a bit more accessible, being the guy who just wants acceptance in a world where acceptance is hard to come by. The two come together to create "The Facebook" and both of their lives spiral out of control, for better and for worse.

Then Mr. Timberlake chimes in as the founder of Napster, and the plot finally sets in. Sean Parker is your typical slick big-wig formal-casual attire-donning businessman. He edges himself into the Facebook craze and becomes a pretty big stock-owner, becoming Mark's most loyal and trusted business adviser.. a position originally belonging to Eduardo.

The personal connections and interactions between the main characters seem real at times, yet soulless at others. If I had to say this film was missing something (other than dinosaurs and a series of explosions), it's a soul. The cinematography, as a whole, is very Harvard-feeling in that everything looks pristine and as close to perfect as possible. Aside from sets taking place at the actual Harvard campus like dorm rooms, classrooms, libraries and gyms, boardrooms are another recurring set, giving everything a "boring" feeling to them. It's a bit difficult to explain, because the film is by no means "boring" but it has that upper-class snooty feel to it, a feel that it pretty much needs to have. This may be why scenes taking place at a nightclub or a pool feel so much out of place, considering things in these scenes are much more hectic than the normal feeling of Harvard. The film definitely shoots for these feelings directly and never misses a mark, which isn't what makes this film "soulless" at certain points... it's the rare far and few moments of happiness anyone ever feels at any given point. Mark is a pretty stoic character and rarely shows emotion to begin with, and Sean gets relatively animated and excited at every turn, but since you're also following the footsteps of Eduardo, he never seems to be complacent with any event, even ones that should get him extremely excited. It almost seems that for every great thing, there's at least an equally terrible occurrence that keeps every character from achieving their nirvana.

All in all, The Social Network is viewed as defining a generation. This is both true and false; although it accurately depicts a lot of college life and emphasizes the theme of interconnectivity between people, it never really hits the nail on the head. I only wish that The Social Network had a few more emotional feelings and scenes as well as focusing on people as a whole rather than just a few and just Harvard... but this is a small gripe at most. The Social Network is, as I stated, a work of art. Facebook is what has defined a generation, and a film chronicling it from start to its current peak in popularity isn't a film to be missed.

9.0/10
-Kyle E. Shelton

Let Me In Review: Let this One In.

A little, charming Swedish vampire flick called "Let the Right One In" was released about two years ago. You probably haven't heard of it because, you know... it's Swedish. Regardless, "Let the Right One In" was a spellbinding fantasy romance, a version of Twilight done the right way. Scary, chilling yet emotionally wrought, it received critical and mild commercial success as well as a cult following.

"Let Me In," the American remake from Cloverfield director Matt Reeves, was a highly anticipated film among most critics and anyone who has seen the original, but it fell under much speculation. Remakes, especially our fantastically product-placed  money-mongering American ones, tend to do the original film less justice.

Well, my fellow moviegoers, Let Me In matches the superiority of its predecessor to the tee. In fact, I really only liked the American version better simply for the fact that it's in English and I don't have to draw my attention to those pesky subtitles diverting my attention.

Thus, Let Me In tells the tale of a boy and a girl who fall in love in a small New Mexico town. The boy, Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), is a troubled and constantly bullied kid who fantasizes about exacting revenge upon those who cross his path. Alas, his fantasies do not come to fruition as he would have hoped, and he is ever-wedgied and emasculated at every turn. One dark, cold, snowy night, he meets a girl his same age named Abby (Kickass star, Chloe Moretz), who immediately informs him that they cannot be friends. However, as nights pass, they increasingly become closer and closer to eachother, until finally Abby confronts Owen about his feelings for her.

Spoiler: Abby is a vampire.

Ok, that wasn't really a spoiler, you're probably aware from trailers and hype that there's a vampiric little girl engaging in vampiric-little-girl shenanigans, and considering she's really the only "little" girl you see, you should have guessed. If you didn't, shame on you.

The original story (adapted from the also Swedish book "Let the Right One In" by John Ajvide Lindqvist) penned by Reeves is where the film shines. Think Twilight, back in time, reversed, and without metrosexual werewolves, and that's the essential plot of Let Me In. However, there's much more to it; visually, the film is equally as striking, presented in an extremely harsh, cold setting with backdrops consisting of bleak and dreary set pieces such as a boarded up apartment, a living room with a drunken sleeping mother lit only by a television and the eerie scene of a forest against a chilling nighttime sky.

What you see on-screen drains your emotion and happiness little by little, with interspersed moments of biting intensity (much like a vampire might do, aye?). The story, though, is where your emotion is brought back. Although neither Owen nor Abby may be instantly relatable characters, you grow to like and eventually love them. Owen, initially, is your typically atypical school outcast. He has no friends, no life and is going nowhere, all while his parents are working through a troubling divorce. This is made apparent immediately, which is why the relationship between him and Abby is so poignant, especially when they first start to hit it off.

Really, I've never seen the genres of romance and horror come together (in general) or so neatly. The love between Owen and Abby is beautifully intertwined with the horror behind Abby's true identity and lifestyle. In fact, you end up becoming more scared of their relationship dwindling or being immediately cut off rather than any sort of grisly scene of violence; however, those grisly scenes of violence are ever so wonderful. The film has all the scares you need: immediate (BOO!), emotional ( aw =[ ) and atmospheric (oooo). The cinematography (Greig Fraser), if nothing else, deserves an Oscar all on its own. Owen himself is actually pretty adorable, and his performance can be appreciated from any angle: because he's cute, because he's creepy, or just because he's heartbreaking. Chloe Moretz of Kickass fame as Hit-Girl reprises another violent, dark role, and she doesn't miss a beat. She's just as endearing as she is standoffish. Both characters have an uncanny sense of fragility absent in many adult-films starring children, and that's where they truly come through.

And so, Let Me In is easily in the running for Best Picture this year, and my personal favorite of 2010 thus far. Charming performances, absolutely beautiful photography, an excellent script and just that hint of originality garner "Let Me In" access to anyone's homes and hearts.

10/10
-Kyle E. Shelton