Chocolate Review: Oh so Sweet

Chocolate, the new film from Prachya Pinkaew (director of Ong-Bak) is the type of martial arts flick that comes very rare to us these days, in that (at least for American audiences), it has no big name actor (like Tony Jaa, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, etc.) and has an overly simple yet immensely intriguing plotline. Far too many martial movies seem to just tell a tale of revenge, and while this is a mild running theme in Chocolate, it features quite the nifty star whose motives are a little bit different.

A woman named Zin (Ammara Siripong) separates from her yakuza-involved husband Masashi (Hiroshi Abe) and has a daughter named Zen (Yanin Vismistananda). Zen, while still a young baby, has problems developing her brain correctly, thus becoming autistic because of it. One day, a few years after Zen is born, Masashi comes back to find Zin at her house. Still enraged that she left him, she cuts off her toe as a reminder of his wrath; soon after, Zin also finds out she has cancer. Her nephew, Moom (Taphon Phopwandee) lives with her and her daughter for a time to help take care of them both. Zen ends up watching various martial arts films and, living next door to an academy for Muay Thai students, learns a slew of skills from them. Her trick is: she can learn all of these wild and fantastic skills simply by watching them. One day, Moom comes across a little black book with names and addresses of people who owe Zin money. They decide to peacefully collect on their debts to help pay for Zin’s hospital bills. Upon visiting each venue, the men responsible are less than friendly in their responsibilities, causing Zen to…well, you guessed it: beat the shit out of them.

This is the main plot throughout the film and becomes more engrossing as the film moves on. In many respects, the film isn’t all too original or different, but it’s a little creative for giving the protagonist a sort of mental disability. Then again, who looks at these films for their story, right? What we want is action…and there’s plenty of it.

Just from this film, it’s easy to tell that Vismistananda is going places with her insane performance in Chocolate. Her stunts are brilliant, and I’m not sure if I should applaud her or the choreographer for this…so I’m just going to praise both. The action is fast, furious and relentless. You may not get crazy bullet dodging or roof jumping (although there’s a fantastic sequence near the end that takes place all while scaling the side of a building), but what you do get is a more down-to-Earth feel of fighting. There aren’t too many elaborate stunts, yet the simplest ones of jumping from box to box or flipping over a chair seem like beautiful pieces of art. More than once, for sure, you will say “Oh my God” at the sheer “badassness” of several feats. Not to mention the fact that there’s plenty of humor mixed into the foray of violence; this is hard to describe unless you just see it yourself.

All in all, the action pieces are fantastic are masterfully carried out while the story is a bit shallow, but definitely enough to keep your attention. I felt a connection with Zen and Zin and felt real emotion at certain points in the story, which is pretty uncommon for straight martial arts movies. The tale between the daughter and mom is an empathetic one as we see cancer arising in the media more and more these days, and the fact that the daughter has an impairment herself only gives the story a heightened emotional feel. With that, Chocolate is a great action movie that doesn’t overstay its welcome and may be an underrated treasure amongst foreign films of the past year.

7.5/10
-Kyle Shelton

Pulp Fiction Review: The Movie is Fiction, the Hype is Real.

Pulp Fiction is easily one of the most recognizable and infamous films, especially of the last decade or so. But why? So many times I've been asked "What makes Pulp Fiction so fantastic?"

I'll tell you what.

Pulp Fiction features such an array of genre-blending moments and set pieces to keep you interested, simply on the brink of delving into its real prowess. It's all too easy to remember "that one scene," and anyone and everyone will recognize it and join in your reminiscing. From Jackrabbit Slim's to Dead Nigger Storage, Pulp Fiction relies heavily on quirkiness and offbeat, dark and satirical comedy and does so masterfully. He creates his own universe, as he does with most of his works, giving him free reign to do things as he pleases. One of the reasons people even watch movies is to escape the reality of our world, and placing a story in a totally fictional environment yet still believable is just what most people will love in any movie, especially this one. Thurman, Travolta, Walken, Jackson and Willis all give lasting, memorable performances in the film; it also created possible career-making roles for Thurman and Jackson. Travolta's career was completely revamped due to this masterpiece (on the list of the American Film Institute's top 100 American films of all time), and had it not been for this Fiction of the Pulp variation, we may not see him around as much.

Good or bad as that may be, Pulp Fiction still sets itself as the iconic 90's noir film. It takes elements from several different cinematic sources and blends them ever so perfectly, creating a visceral experience not by sight, not by sound, but by involvement. The tangled web the plot weaves seems to go in circles at times, which you would think would be a negative aspect of it, but toward the end, everything is wrapped nice and neat with a bloody Tarantino bow on top. In essence, Pulp Fiction sets in all this uneasiness and mystery with the story as a whole, and the pay off at the end is so gratifying, playing off itself. Yes, by the time Pulp Fiction reaches its end, it has enough material to play off itself. Simply put, that's genius, and leave it to a masterful director such as Tarantino to pull it off exquisitely.

Pulp Fiction is half comedy, half noir-gangster drama, but all clever. Each character is easily up for a "favorite" from the film itself (or Tarantino's repertoire) just because they're so damn interesting and leveled. The dialogue, although pointless at times, is spot-on hilarious. When you can make a cheeseburger sound infinitely more interesting than murder, you've got a real gem on your hands. This is also just one of those films that is impossible to overrate; too many times have I ranted and raved about a film I thought was nearly flawless, only to show someone and have them say "it wasn't THAT good." That's quite the bullet to the chest for a reviewer or any real film person, for that matter. But Pulp Fiction stands the test of time itself and is still such a fun experience, no amount of reverence can offshoot someone's personal expectations for it.

Those who don't enjoy Pulp Fiction will probably just not get it. It's like telling a multi-layered joke to someone who smirks just because the rest of the group is hysterically bursting out in laughter. Pulp Fiction retains elements of drama, self-reflection, revenge, physical comedy, involving dialogue, memorable set pieces and a fantastic overall performance by the entire cast. Why Pulp Fiction didn't win Best Picture in 1994 is beyond me. If it hadn't at least been nominated, there would probably have been a heavy revolt and retaliation against the Academy.

To this day, there's nary a film to match Pulp Fiction's level of sophisticated comedy and plot machinations. There's simply been too many copies are cash-ins due to Pulp's success, and mockery is the most sincere form of flattery. Pulp Fiction is, to this day, Quentin Tarantino's tour de force of filmmaking. Yes, all of his directed films are par for the course, but it is this shining, early brilliance that established him as one of Hollywood's highest ranking directors.

The rare 10/10.

-Kyle Shelton

The Fall Review: Majestic.

Tarsem Singh, known for his cult hit "The Cell," returns to the silver screen with his independently funded visual parade of color, "The Fall." Certainly one of the most underrated films of the year, The Fall is a beautiful and encouraging story of revenge and heroism on a truly epic scale. This scale, however, is awkwardly balanced, and although magnificent to view, its not without its series of faults.

Anyone who's seen The Fall will tell you the same thing: it's stunning eye-candy, beyond almost anything you can comprehend in modern filmmaking. What Tarsem does with the cinematography, costume design and set pieces is transform what would ordinarily be just a desert, just a hospital, or just water...he turns it all into beautiful bewilderment for the senses. While the scheme of colors will certainly transcend what you may be used to, on par with it is the performance by one-time star Catinca Untaru. If you get the DVD or somehow find interviews with cast and crew, you'll find some neat fun facts, mostly revolving around her character. Most of her dialogue is completely improvised because the crew wanted her to believe what was happening on set was actually real, such as Lee Pace's character being bed-ridden because he broke his leg. On a side note, Lee Pace provides a very intriguing and memorable performance as Roy, a failed and loveless stuntman.

Roy proceeds to tell a large-scale, stunning story of unwavering love and justified revenge, but stops at the most crucial moments, forcing young Alexandria (Untaru) to get him medication he wants. The film is basically split into two intersecting stories: the one Roy tells Alexandria and the real-life story of Roy's illness and Alexandria's defiance and perseverance. The story that Roy creates is vividly imagine by Alexandria in a series of semi-narrated sequences, all brilliantly played out and orchestrated.

So what's the problem? Depth. The Fall lacks depth. In what could easily have underlying themes and real emotional value, there is almost none. The Fall falls barren and flat by the end, and as beautiful and interesting as it is, none of the characters really have any interesting layers to them. The back-stories of the 5 protagonists and the main antagonists are barely touched on, and they're mostly very interesting. Its sad to see lifelines of potentially incredible characters cut so short. Although the whole "story" within the story is completely made up of the top of Roy's mind as he's on several forms of medication, there are parts towards the middle-end that either trail off into nothing or don't really make sense. The Fall is quirky and an odd film, to say the least, but by the end, you'll feel a strange mix of uneasy dissatisfaction and a thematic orgasm.

The Fall's greatest strength, though, is a great strength that still has yet to be paralleled in my view. Every single shot taking place within the faux story is simply jaw-dropping, and to know that no special effects or fake transitions were used is just another mind-blowing gratification. What The Fall lacks in its narrative, it more than makes up for in its skin-deep beauty. In fact, imagine The Fall as an angelically attractive person with emotion and ambition who ultimately just isn't good at any of his/her talents he/she tries to evoke. The Fall looked to be like an Academy Award-grabbing escapade, and in its costume and set departments, it should be. However, The Fall could have been a spectacular overall film if only the script had been focused on a little more. If the plot and characters had been revisited a little more, or to the degree of the bombastic visuals, The Fall would have been perfect.

8.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

Add, Adapt, Repeat: Holistic Hollywood's Never-Fail Formula

On this day of Thanksgiving, I chose to reflect on a few things: my career and future, my family and friends, and the quality of the cinema today. Perhaps not all directly related to each other, that last section is what struck me the most: the quality of cinema today. Most of today's movies range from perfect to downright awful, but they all have one thing in common: lack of originality. An easy comparison would be Slumdog Millionaire, winner of the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture vs. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, a despicable escapade of special effects and product placement. Both are adaptations of other works of art, Slumdog being a direct adaptation of the book "Q & A" by Vikus Swarup, Transformers being both an adaptation of the original "Transformers" tv show and line of toys as well as a sequel to the simply-titled "Transformers" back in 2007.

Problems lie within these kinds of titles. Yes, there exist plenty of films that may be adaptations, remakes or sequels and are commercially and critically successful, but personally, I sense a strong inclination of overseeing the huge, overlying predicament Hollywood faces: ideas. There's a fine line between originality and creativity: originality is being able to derive source material from one's own mind and creativity is the ability to make anything, published or not, into your own work. Directors, actors and writers are constantly churning out creativity in the movie market today, but who sees a truly original, truly individual, truly stand-out work of art? Nearly no one. The foreign markets seem to be gleaming in the lime light of originality (namely the Swedish made "Home" or the Japanese "Big Man Japan" or even the disturbing Hungarian "Taxidermia"), but not much more than the U.S. agenda's spotlight of commercial cash-in. This year alone, it wouldn't be difficult to name 50 films off the top of your mind that are, in some way, adapted, remade, or added from/to another work. The most global and historically recognized and successful films all fall prey to this legitimate truth: Gone with the Wind was a book, Titanic was a historical event and countlessly adapted into novels and other films, the Spider-Man series is adapted from the famous comic books by Marvel, The Dark Knight is simply a different take on the already-popularized Batman culture from DC Comics, the Twilight series is based on the famous series of tween novels, and Pirates of the Caribbean was originally based on a Disney ride in California (only to spawn sequels that build off initial premises). These allegations, in themselves, serve as an homage to our money-hungry leaders, particularly the producers in movie studios who jump at any opportunity to seduce the feeble minded and mass market into throwing money into a trivial trap that is "the movies."

In fact, you could see any given film and it's about 85% likely to be a sequel, adaptation or remake.

Maybe I am being a little too harsh in this observation, though. Personally, the cinema is a grandiose gift to humanity, a way of producing any given work into its own separate entity, injecting excitement and posing new ideas, concepts and ventures from already-made books, plays and stories. Movies are a glorification of practically any work, being able to turn even the most mundane and melancholy novel into an energetic or emotional thrill of a story. Sticking to source material or not, movies just have that special something that make us pay attention and believe what is on screen is real. They pull you in and never let go.

And therein lies the base for the creativity conundrum. The strength of films are their ultimate demise; the fact that a movie can be so irresistible and fantastic (to each their own) completely deludes the human mind. Sure, Academy Award-winning pictures could be great, but the trend we see today is rarely touched upon: they're all unoriginal. Luckily, studios like Disney and Pixar produce original works; that is to say, many animated features that are released are original for the most part. Take the film "Up" for example, by Pixar Studios. Up is the kind of film that you couldn't dream up in your wildest imaginations, and on top of its originality and creativity, it became both commercially and critically successful, earning rave reviews from critics and the general public alike. Its cute, its witty and clever, but most importantly, its not a copy.

Now if only we could adapt the ideology of originality that some studios put forth rather than adapt more New York Times Bestselling Novels, the people's minds wouldn't be so convoluted. We've come to a point where people mostly say "I can't wait til they make that [book, play, musical, ride, tv show, event, etc.] into a movie!" Remember a time when kids and grown-ups alike would come up with a preposterous yet infinitely intriguing concept and say "Yeah...they should make that into a movie!" ? Those were the days.

Now, I hope no one believes that I'm personally chewing up the film industry and spitting them on the street simply because they are making tons of unoriginal works...well, maybe I am; however, I do enjoy plenty of films that are taken from other publications like Slumdog Millionaire and even my most prized choice film of all time, The Lion King. The Dark Knight makes my top list as well as A Clockwork Orange, but the films that truly inspire me and send me into a state of awe are the films that don't have concrete source material. Tarantino's films come to mind, as they're all incredibly original as well as creative. Sure, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds are examples of films that have roots in other ideas, genres and publications, but they're not entirely cookie-cutter carbon copies of them. Pulp Fiction is a tongue-in-cheek satire of the noir style of film, Kill Bill builds on several different anime/manga/Japanese filmmaking concepts but mixes them perfectly into a masterpiece milkshake, and Inglourious Basterds takes elements from war films, particularly WWII films, and satirizes them while giving it that pulpy B-Movie flare that he's known for. Or many of the indie films that most of us never hear about: those tend to win over the audiences that actually do see them and the critics that they tend to. Tarsem Singh's "The Fall," Marc Webb's "500 Days of Summer," or Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler" and "Requiem for a Dream" are all independent films that the masses perhaps weren't keen to, and they got it right. Even Paranormal Activity, seemingly taking a candle to Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, was wholely creative and fantastic in execution. It seems that the biggest offenders here are main-market, audience pleasing big-budget blowouts. What am I bashing? Let's review:


Transformers (Adaptation)
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (Adaptation, Sequel)
My Sister's Keeper (Adaptation)
Disney's A Christmas Carol (Adaptation, Remake)
Twilight (Adaptation)
Twilight: New Moon (Adaptation, Sequel)
Harry Potter (All of them) (Adaptations, Sequels)
The Road (Adaptation)
Amelia (Historical)
Astro Boy (Adaptation)
The Lord of the Rings (Adaptation)
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Adaptation, Sequel)
The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Adaptation, Sequel)
Pirates of the Caribbean (Adaptation)
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Sequel)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (Sequel)
The Boondock Saints: All Saint's Day (Sequel)
Halloween (Remake)
Halloween II (Sequel)
Friday the 13th (Remake)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (Remake)
The Ring (Remake)
The Grudge (Remake)
When a Stranger Calls (Remake)
Mirrors (Remake)
One Missed Call (Remake)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Remake)
Ice Age: The Meltdown (Sequel)
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (Sequel)
Julie and Julia (Adaptation)
The Men who Stare at Goats (Historical)
Pirate Radio (Historical)
The Stepfather (Remake)
Saw II - VI (Sequels)
Surrogates (Adaptation)
Watchmen (Adaptation)
The Time Traveler's Wife (Adaptation)
Whip It (Adaptation)
Where the Wild Things Are (Adaptation)
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans (Remake)
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (Remake)
2012 (Historical)
The Da Vinci Code (Adaptation)
Angels & Demons (Adaptation)
My Bloody Valentine 3D (Remake)
The Pink Panther (Remake, Adaptation)
The Pink Panther 2 (Sequel)
Street Figher: The Legend of Chun-Li (Adaptation)
Alone in the Dark (Adaptation)
Crank 2 (Sequel)
Transporter 2 and 3 (Sequels)
Race to Witch Mountain (Remake)
12 (Remake)
Funny Games (Remake)
The Haunting in Connecticut ("Historical")
The Fast and The Furious 2, The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift, Fast and Furious (Sequels)
Poseidon (Remake)
Fame (Remake)
Terminator: Rise of the machines (Sequel)
Terminator: Salvation (Sequel)
Max Payne (Adaptation)
The Punisher (Adaptation)
The Punisher: War Zone (Adaptation)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Adaptation, Prequel)
Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (Prequel)
Underworld: Evolution (Sequel)
The Kite Runner (Adaptation)


And these are only more recent films. Tons of films from beyond the current generation retain the same sequel/remake/adaptation style that we see today, as well as plenty of confirmed future projects; unfortunately, its the rate at which these copies simply churn out of the producers' factories that plague our industry. And just to reiterate, I'm not saying any given film that happens to be a sequel, remake or adaptation is bad or not enjoyable, but its simply a sad situation to be in when all anyone hears about are films based on numerous other sources and publications. I do appreciate the volumes of books that have been adapted onto the screen; there are plenty of titles out there today that I would love to see turned cinematic. However, the majority of films today fall into that specific "recycled" idea, and I'd rather see a year full of completely original, non-cliche films than even my most anticipated adaptation.

An entirely separate encyclopedia could be written based solely on movies that may not be carbon copies of a specific work, but are simply rehashes of every other movie. You may go through a list and see plenty of films that fit my accusations, but also many that may not. Lest we forget that Romantic Comedies, J-Horror, Torture Porn, Noir/Pulp, Masculinity and Disaster sub-genres all tend to blend within their groups as extremely identical, and each contain glaringly blatant similarities among themselves that catch the attention of the average movie-goer. I guess you could say a film like "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past" or "Fighting" aren't remakes...but they aren't exactly original either. My focus in this article is concentrated on sequels, adaptations and remakes but isn't limited to these only. There exist too many films that, although not specifically copying another work, are far too familiar and use themes and ideas from too many other works to really be considered "original" or "creative." For example, most romantic comedies take one or two celebrities, force them with an unyielding, cliche-ridden script, then market the film NOT as a great film, but simply as a star-vehicle for the main protagonists (or antagonists). That's simply an example, and as time goes on, I'm sure I'll write another speculative observation on the redundancy and laziness of Hollywood on the gimmicky front, but for now, similar problems lie within the realm of remakes, adaptations and sequels as well as the rehashes among genres.

This is where I'm going to disagree with all the PSA's and educational groups: Kids, don't read a book. Write one.



-Kyle Shelton

The Fourth Kind Review: The Worst Kind

Okay, before I even talk about the film, let's get the one big thing out of the way first: the "true story" allegations behind it. While it's difficult to verify Dr. Abigail Tyler's true involvement in the film and whether or not the "home video" style footage was real, there was a slew of (poor) viral marketing used to promote the film before it was released. By poor, I mean rushed and futile in the shadow of Paranormal Activity. The Fourth Kind's biggest mistake was attempting to capitalize on the kind of advertising put forth by Paranormal and Cloverfield. It succeeded to get audiences and media hype because of its wishy-washy stance on its own "true story," but one statement revealed in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner stated:

"On November 12, 2009 Universal Pictures agreed to a $20,000 settlement with the Alaska Press Club 'to settle complaints about fake news archives used to promote the movie.' Universal acknowledged that they created fake online news articles and obituaries to make it appear that the movie had a basis in real events."


I can't say without 100% doubt that the film is completely fake, but that's the direction that I'm leaning in, especially with Universal admitting that they created a huge fake database as the source for most of the film's citation.

With that out of the way, The Fourth Kind is pretty bad. It follows the story of Dr. Abigail Emily Tyler (Milla Jovovich, Abigail Tyler), a psychologist who resides in Nome, Alaska. After sessions with several different patients, she notices a strange trend and continuity in their stories that assert the witnessing of an owl or owl-like figuring either inhabiting their homes or stalking them outside. When put under hypnosis, these patients soon show signs of psychosis, schizophrenia, etc...but more importantly, they all seem to be deathly afraid of some kind of invasion in their home. Several events take place, and Tyler decides to call in her colleague, Dr. Abel Campos (Elias Koteas) to witness and assess the patients alongside her. She then notices a strange language being spoken and calls another professor, Dr. Awolowa Odusami (Hakeem Kae-Kazim) to interpret.

Well, hell ensues. As you probably could have guessed, alien abduction becomes the main suspect in the various cases. The premise (including the marketing) is certainly interesting and doesn't fail on its own, but the problem lies within the execution. The Fourth Kind retains a few choice moments that will send chills down your spine (including the police investigative videos and the ending sequences), but overall, it's a bore. One, long, painful-at-times bore. At some point, you'll wish you'd get abducted from the theater to save the intermittent "plot points" to connect the shock shots.

Perhaps I'm being a little cruel; at least some of the crucial plot points occur within the scary moments so they're not JUST for show. In the end, though, The Fourth Kind is extremely shallow and falls prey to the basic horror formula. Scares are incredibly predictable, but not in that fun way that they were in Paranormal Activity. One of my biggest gripes about a lot of horror films is the "loud noise" that occurs in order to scare the audience. Without such a sound effect, the moment would not have been nearly as scary or threatening and it's just a cheap and artificial maneuver to grab some gasps. Time and time again, it works, but I have a feeling even the most scared, attention-grabbing sorority damsel in distress will tire of these cheap tactics.

There's also no momentum in the film to really propel it forward. You're looking forward to one event the entire time: the advent of the aliens. Similar to the propulsion used in M. Night Shyamalan's "Signs," you just want to see the damn extraterrestrials already. I don't want to give away anything, but I'll just say that the plot ending is pretty disappointing. If we're going to talk about the ending, though, the last few scenes are full of sheer terror and relatively inventive filmmakin; nothing too exciting, but worth mentioning. I have a bias to be scared of anything dealing with the paranormal or extraordinary (like ghosts and aliens), so I couldn't sleep for a while...but that doesn't necessarily mean the film was good or highly effective in its attempts.

Milla Jovovich does a surprisingly good job playing Dr. Abigail Tyler, and alongside the attention-catching gimmick, she provides the main source of intrigue in this film for me. I may not be her biggest fan, but she pulls quite the dramatic punch with her performance in The Fourth Kind. Again, nothing to write home about...

And that remains the problem. The film is full of interesting ideas and concepts and handles them poorly at times but only moderately well at others. The Fourth Kind is shoddy and becomes uninteresting halfway through. In fact, it feels like a chore; it draws you in with its remnant of a storyline and then just bores you to tears. It's bitter-bitter: you want to leave yet you can't...attributing to this may be the promise of a hugely shocking scenario. Early on the film, you witness one specific scene (just wait for the police-car footage) that makes you think the rest of the film will be just as intense and disturbing...then you realize that it's not.

All in all, The Fourth Kind has its share of chilly spine-tinglers, but has somewhat of a glass ceiling over itself that it never breaks through. Believe what you will, but there's no denying that The Fourth Kind just didn't live up to its own hype. We may now face an alien invasion due solely to the fact that any otherworldly race may feel insulted by this.

4.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

2012 Review: Doomsday...now in Beautifully Rended CGI!

If you haven't quite marked your calendars for the end of days as we know it, you might have been anxious enough to look forward to the release of the film foreshadowing our demise, "2012." Whether you're a believer or not, chances are that your visual and thrill senses were tickled when you first saw the trailer for 2012 due to its sheer beauty retained in tsunamis, earthquakes, lava rain, fireballs, blizzards and explosions. When you get right down to it, no one was expecting 2012 to win any Academy Awards or even have a completely coherent plot; that includes the makers of the film. With that being said, 2012 is a dazzling spectacle of true computer-generated prowess...and not much else.

2012 is an overcooked cliche story about a washed up author (John Cusack) who wants to take his kids camping for a weekend. Being divorced from his wife (Amanda Peet), he's almost forced to see his children at least once in a while, which means having to see his ex-wife's new husband (Thomas McCarthy). Before this part of the story, however, the "scientific" explanation for the coming events is briefly reviewed as a breakthrough and devastating discovery is made in India. With this information, geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) travels to the United States to alert the government. With that, disasters start building up around the world as all the various governments try to grasp what little real power they have left before all hell ensues.

2012 can be many things, but one thing its not is intelligent. The little scientific evidence the movie uses to make realistic forthcoming events is not only boring, but completely unnecessary. In fact, I can personally look at 2012 and think of a vast array of ways for 2012 to have been a cult classic, at least. Most highly is the droll and unimaginative storytelling and directing used to draw out the two-and-a-half hour exploit. There's nothing here in the way of creativity; it's mostly riding one gimmick and one gimmick only the entire way. It would have been infinitely more interesting to turn 2012 into a framework story or a more personal anecdote rather than a simple third-person "Oh shit" yarn. Overall, 2012 is just one big sadistic guilty pleasure. Sure, the CGI and real-world scares are one thing, but what a lot of people won't admit to being excited for are the millions of deaths and worldwide tragedies to be shown in such a film.

To its credit, 2012 does have a few moments of intensity and suspense...but not in a good way. In fact, 2012 is so cliche-ridden that every single moment of climax can be seen coming from 2000 years away. The inevitable cliffhangers that last for a whole minute, the big "decision-making" scenes, deciding who's going to die and who's going to survive...all of this is sheer amateurish at best. 2012 takes elements from other disaster films like "The Day After Tomorrow" (directed by Roland Emmerich just as 2012 was) and "The Perfect Storm" and then flattens them out to a shallow and mediocre work. The characters in the film are such cookie-cutter catastrophe contestants that its hard to really get attached to any of them. The film does try to mix in humor with sympathy, but ultimately fails. The love lies solely within the technology. So many tweaks could have been made to really make 2012 stand out as more than just a conspiracy cash-in, but that remains its fate for now.

The script is incredibly weak, the acting is sub-par if anything, the plot is riddled with cliche's and stupidity...alas, 2012 does have its one gambit. Its one ace-in-the-hole. Its one gimmick that works: disaster. 2012's CGI and computer effects are stunning and brilliantly executed. Usually, I am not a fan of films that rely heavily on the artificial art of computer engineering (Transformers 2...), but 2012 pulls off such sequences involving shattering buildings and crust destruction perfectly. The film's action portions feel like roller coaster rides and, to be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Universal or Six Flags picked up a contract to build a 2012-themed coaster.

With a tv-show being produced and in talks, its no surprise that 2012 started a huge hype and will probably last for a while. 2012 definitely put a stranglehold on the disaster movie sub-genre; it placed barriers to entry for any other film posing identical events because all anyone cares about now is the rapture that is supposed to take place in 3 years. Luckily, 2012 is a disaster movie without being a disaster; if it hadn't been for Emmerich's flashy CGI, 2012 would have been pretty drop-dead terrible. Unfortunately, 2012 is still pretty bad, even for what it was aiming for. The masses may enjoy it, but the individual may not. 2012 is just an exercise in missed chances in the same way Zombieland was.

5.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

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