The Human Centipede Review: 3 times the Charm.

Ahh yes, The Human Centipede. No doubt you have at least heard of this disgusting, graphic depiction of an ER patient's worst nightmare, but few have really seen it (or at least been able to stomach all 90 minutes of it). For the few thousand of you that have heard of the film, there's a few hundred that have seen part of it, a few dozen that have seen it all, and about Six of you that have realized that it is, indeed, a film (Six being capitalized as an allusion, by the way). It's not like "Monsturd" or "Ghost in a Teeny Bikini;" The Human Centipede is an actual horror film with very little humor, camp or lack thereof, at any given moment.

Yes, the premise seems silly, and overall the film does feel a bit preposterous. While actually watching, however, you'll tend to forget how funny and joke-worthy the concept is because you'll be drawn in to what is actually a tremendously engaging, psychologically torturing thriller-horror film from director Tom Six. Of course, the film is gross, but graphically gory this film is not! Your imagination is put to great use in scenes where you might think the most horrific spectacles would be occurring.

Yet, despite how strongly I'm trying to convince you that this film should be taken as a serious horror film, the acting is laughably atrocious at most parts. This is, of course, completely foregoing Dieter Laser as the German Dr. Heiter, who steals the show in every scene. Then again, if you know anything about the film, you'll realize that half the main cast will have a hard time getting words out... considering the predicament surrounding their speaking orifices.

What you'll have to grasp before really delving into this film is, beyond its shallow gimmick and over-the-top premise, there lies an above-average horror flick. It has all the regular makings of what most of us would consider a decent "horror" (stupid American girls, machinery nonsensically ceasing to work, creepy antagonist, an Asian), and by typical genre conventions it definitely passes. What it lacks in story (and logically sound mentality) it more than makes up for with a fantastic villain and pure, giddy, suspense-ridden uneasiness. A good chunk of this uneasiness isn't even from the biological terror; it's just plain creepy. Dr. Heiter is, quite frankly, psychotic. Combine this wonderful psychosis with a brilliant ego maniacal "genius" mentality, and you have all the makings of villainy in German form. The extremely dehumanizing acts he forces his victims to perform and his complete lack of sympathy shine him in the perfect horror-villain light.

Unfortunately, he's not utilized to the best of his ability. I was on the fence for a while, debating with myself whether or not he worked better as a short, sweet villain or a crazed but well characterized antagonist who could've been explored much deeper and physically used much more creatively. I ended up landing on the latter, and you'll see what I mean by the end of the film. Aside from Dr. Heiter, however, there's a lot left to be desired when it comes to the other characters. They make ridiculously stupid decisions here and there, especially Katsuro (Akihiro Kitamura) at one pivotal point in the film. There's also a very restricted soundtrack here, so what you hear is all diegetic atmosphere. Mm mmmm.

The film also doesn't have your D-grade "jump out" scare tactics that stupid movies like to use. Its gross-out factor is certainly there, and you wouldn't be watching the film if it weren't for that. But luckily, the disgust level never devolves into stupidity like segments of Hostel or Saw do all too often. The film is just enough raunchy mayhem, and although it's definitely disturbing, that's exactly what it's aiming for. After watching, you can say you dislike the movie because it was "gross" or made you queasy, but that's like saying you disliked The Hangover because it made you laugh. A film like The Human Centipede has clear intentions, and when those intentions succeed, you have to give the film credit. There's nary a moment where you'll say "this is just ridiculous" because it just won't degrade to that level.

So yes, I recommend The Human Centipede if you're looking for a deviant to the monotonous garbage of Hollywood horror flicks being churned out every few weeks. It's fun, it's different, and it's suspenseful. It achieves everything it wants to, and while it's not perfect in any regard and won't win chains of awards for anything in particular, it's not the "stupid torture porn" you may be expecting.

7.5/10

-Kyle Shelton

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

Salt Review: Left me Dry.

Who is Salt?

That’s a mighty fine question to pose, movie poster. I’m still not entirely sure who Salt is, except that I know she just wants to be the “good guy.”
Thus, Hollywood has churned out yet another relatively shallow “blockbuster” star vehicle by the name of “Salt.”

The story, to the best of my ability to comprehend, is about a woman named Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie, as if you didn’t know) who’s accused of being a Russian sleeper agent in the U.S. She leads a normal life as a good ol’ American citizen working for the C.I.A. when a Russian man named Orlov (a man whose name I’m just too lazy to look up) is captured and interrogated. Upon this interrogation, he spills the beans that Salt is a Russian spy and that she’s going to kill the Russian President when he comes to visit America on behalf of the American Vice President’s death. Oh, and she has a husband who is really into spiders, whose existence in the film is almost completely useless save for one pivotal point about halfway through. That's just shoddy writing, and is about as close to a deus ex machina as you can get without literally being called a deus ex machina.

Anyway, as you can guess, she runs away and everyone in America is out to get her. Her bff Ted (Liev Schrieber) plays dumb throughout the entire chase and truly believes that Salt is innocent.

Of course, until she tries to assassinate the President of Russia. AT A CHURCH of all places. She really knows how to put the "fun" in "funeral."

But I digress, scenes like that are what make Salt a deliciously fun film. Campy at times, Salt is enthralling, and with a tagline like "Who is Salt?" you'd have to be a complete idiot not to realize that there's going to be at least one huge twist in the film. Then you discover that there's about 4. Then you come to terms with the fact that Salt goes from being really cool and slick to just ridiculous.

SPOILER:
Why is it ridiculous? Just like the "SPOILER" in all caps reads, you may not want to read this paragraph. If you're still reading, you've been warned. The point where boy-next-door Ted decides to go Postal and SMG the bejesus out of EVERYONE in the President's war room is when I just felt violated and confused. The twist was interesting (if not foreseeable), but it went way too over the top. I'm a fan of over the top. In fact, my favorite action movie of all time is Grindhouse and it really doesn't get more over the top than that. But you're telling me than a man who's entrusted with sitting next to the President of the United States in a confined and highly isolated room while launching nuclear warheads at any country he so chooses can just waltz around and shoot every single person in there without so much as a scratch on his knee?
:END OF SPOILER

Anyway, Salt has its moments of boldness when it comes to how far it is willing to push you until you finally say "Okay, really?" That has nothing to do with how she defies physics as she seamlessly jumps from car to car on a busy highway... it's all in terms of story. A man whom the Central INTELLIGENCE Agency is believed to be a foreign terrorist cannot just walk into their headquarters armed with a knife, kill two of their finest employees, then just walk out never to be heard from again. That just doesn't happen.

Jolie does a fine job with the script she's given, and she should be commended. She still stands as one of our favorite Femme Fatales in the movie biz, and she's not losing that status any time soon. Then again, it's hard for anyone to remember a tried and true "good" movie she's been in that wasn't all hyped up just because she was the star. Salt is yet another cinematic endeavor that comes out during Summer, people will most likely love for a week, and then be forgotten in the disarray of past Summer action blockbusters we all dearly knew. That's pretty much all there is to it. Salt is great the day you see it, pretty good the following week, then it's easily replaced by another film of the exact same quality.

Salt is a gimmick. It's not necessarily bad by any means of the word, but it just won't transcend any standards or become the new "Die Hard" franchise we should be so ready for. It hardly does anything new, its main driving force is Jolie and the only reason anyone will "like" the film enough to refer it to friends is because it presents several twists that some of us will see coming a mile away and some of us will suspend our disbelief long enough to pretend we didn't see it coming a mile away. From an action standpoint, Salt was frenetic and fun in all the right places. From any other standpoint, Salt falls flat.

-Kyle Shelton
5.0/10