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

Fall Movie Preview!

So I haven't updated my movie page in quite a while, what with the business I've been going through with college nonsense. But hey! Who needs a college degree when you can lounge around on your couch and type away on the laptop all day, huh?

That was a joke. Kids, go to school.

On an unrelated and much less corny note, Summer is drawing to a very near close...although sad for anyone in school under the age of 19, it's a glorious celebration for the movie world! Finally, all the popcorn-popping mindless movies of the May-August spectrum are leaving...and entering are the Oscar-grabbers and intermittently "just-for-fun" enjoyable films. Although Summer ended with 2 spectacular mainstream masterpieces (District 9 and Inglourious Basterds), the time has come to look to the future for what seems to hold promise!

To begin, I'd like to point out a hugely produced and long-awaited little picture known simply as "9." What's especially intriguing right off the bat about 9 is the production team: Tim Burton (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Edward Scissorhands) and Timur Bekmambetov (director of Wanted). This is a very odd yet exciting coupling of artistic and visual design, which only extrapolates the intensity of what 9 is already about: a group of various, miniature ragdoll-esque humanoid figures on a mission to save the world after the human race is destroyed. Judging from the trailer(s), 9 looks to be an epic film, and I don't just mean really good, it actually looks like it's on an epic scale. Giant robots and firefights galore, it's an ambitious and classic "Hero's Tale" modified for a modern post-apocalyptic setting. It also has an ensemble cast, including Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, and Crispin Glover. Appropriately destined, check out 9 when it's released on September 9, 2009!

Next is a new vampire flick entitled "The Vampire's Assistant," based on a part of the series of books known as The Saga of Darren Shan. Now, the first thing that popped into my head when i saw this (and I'm sure plenty of other peoples' heads as well) is that it seems to be trying to cash in on the vampire fad that has plagued us for the past year, thanks to the Twilight and True Blood crazes. However, after watching the trailer (and not having read the books), it looks to be a light-hearted fantasy comedy of sorts that distinguishes itself as a different and more original premise than the other vampire knockoffs of today. It tells the tale of a teenage boy who loves the mythological and realizes that a man in a "freakshow" circus act is actually a vampire. Enticed by the astounding history of vampire lore, he is easily convinced to learn the ways of the vampire. What's also interesting is that said vampire is played by the comical John C. Reilly (Walk Hard, Step Brothers). When I first heard about the film, I assumed it to be an overall seriously toned work, but after watching the trailer, it looks to have its funny moments as well as its dark ones. The movie shows some promise, but I'm not getting my hopes up too high. Look out for this one October 23, 2009.

And now, a film that I have been on edge about since the beginning of the year: Where the Wild Things Are. There are no words to describe how excited I am for this film to premiere, considering it's based on a beautiful childrens' book that I loved as a kid. Helmed by famed and beloved director Spike Jonze (Adaptation., Being John Malkovich), it looks to be quite a visceral exploration of human imagination and emotion. Most of all, the film just looks so incredibly lovable on so many levels and also seems to be enjoyable to children, teens, and adults alike. The book itself had so little dialogue that it'll definitely be a feat to turn it into a full fledged film, but a very welcome feat. Here's to loving Where the Wild Things Are on October 16, 2009.

Next up is a film that I don't feel too excited about: The Road. What strikes my interest is that it's based on a story written by Cormac McCarthy, the writer of No Country for Old Men. However, in the recent flood of vampire, zombie and apocalypse films, The Road doesn't really stand out all too much. What can be taken from the trailer is that it's set right after a disastrous event (most likely a disease or virus) that annihilated most of the world's population, and now a small family must fight for their survival through insane headhunters and (possibly) zombified creatures. Like I said, this would be all well and good if we hadn't seen this kind of film already so many times before. But, if it interests you beyond my own, look out for it on October 16, 2009!

Now I come to a film that I've already covered in a previous Movie Preview: Zombieland. Starring Woody Harrelson, Zombieland looks to be a B-Movie-esque style interpretation of survivors fighting off hordes of zombies in some sort of disastrous aftermath. What makes it special is its style and presentation, looking to glorify zombie-execution techniques and, well...just plain being a fun movie. Like the zombies you'll witness on-screen, it sure looks to be a mindless popcorn-stuffing thrill ride that you, hopefully, won't soon forget. But, it hasn't come out yet, thus it's too early to tell if Zombieland has what it takes to be a great film. It comes out on October 9, 2009.

Now we come to a wishy-washy looking movie called "Gamer" starring 300's Gerard Butler. The premise looks interesting: people can control inmates in an ultra-violent video game resembling a third-person shooter (similar to Gears of War) by moving their body and having the inmate/character move in the exact same manner. Obviously, it's posing some interesting questions about being able to control someone else's body and the morality behind it, but that same theme looks to be better done in Disney's upcoming adaptation "Surrogates." However, it does look to satiate the casual viewer's hunger for action and violence, and with that I cannot argue. We'll just have to see how well it executes its motives next this Friday, September 4, 2009.

Hollywood may not be the smartest group of people on the planet, but sometimes that can be looked as a good thing. Regardless of how the following film turns out to be, I can't get over the mundane and cliche title of it: Ninja Assassin. All strifes with taxonomy aside, Ninja Assassin certainly builds its premise within the confines of the anime-crazy junkies, but also in the general public's view of the "cool" ninja and the "cool" assassin ideals. Ninja Assassin, although mildly gimmicky, holds to its Japanese/Chinese roots by having mostly Asian actors and set in a (possibly mostly) Asian setting: that means no mullet-wearing Nicolas Cage with a sniper rifle on top of tall metropolitan buildings. Phewww. Jokes aside, Ninja Assassin may just be too gimmicky for its own good, telling a pretty bland, cliche, pseudo-coming-of-age tale of a boy being raised strictly and militarily in the ways of the ninja only to be betrayed at a much older age and swearing revenge. But, perhaps it'll succeed as a fun and inventive modern martial-arts picture? And the fact that it's being produced by the Wachowski Brothers (The Matrix Trilogy) can't hurt either. We won't know until it comes out November 25, 2009.

Ahh you knew I'd get around to this gem...Saw VI. Oh when will it end? I'm sure all the retro rollerbladers of the 1980's and early 90's asked the very same question when it came to Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger. Most people complain about the Saw series as being a dragged out and immoral celebration of gore and torture, and while there may be some truth to that, Saw also tags an interesting story behind its relatively disgusting premise. Kudos to the writers for continuously making more story every time it seems it has met its dead end. No matter how much you may berate the film for its wrongdoings, chances are you'll probably end up seeing it any way, at least to get into the Halloween spirit. The trailer for Saw VI doesn't really hint at too much story evolution, but it does keep the tension that it raises every year with new traps and new, ugly yet creative ways of death dealing human destruction. What will the new installment bring us this year? You'll have to wait till October 23, 2009 to find out.

Now to break the mold and introduce a romantic comedy from the producer of Paris, Je T'aime: New York, I Love You; it's a cornucopia collection of 12 short films all with the universal theme of finding love, whether it's successful or not. It also has quite an all-star cast, including Shia LaBeouf, Christina Ricci, Hayden Christensen, Orlando Bloom, Andy Garcia, Ethan Hawke, Cloris Leachman and even Natalie Portman who directs a segment! Now that's a mouthful. New York is certainly aiming to be a heartwarming, funny, and charming cinematic endeavor, much like Paris was. Opening October 16, 2009, be sure to check it out; surely at least one of your favorite actors is appearing in it.

Moving on from love, zombies, vampires, and the apocalypse, we enter another familiar realm of filmmaking: aliens. The new film starring Milla Jovovich (Resident Evil, Ultraviolet), The Fourth Kind, showcases experiments done by Dr. Abigail Tyler in a rural town in Alaska. Her patients showed signs of various mental illnesses and outbursts and have claimed to have some sort of contact with aliens. If alien conspiracy is your cup of tea, then The Fourth Kind is right up your alley; judging from the trailer, the only thing that worries me about the film overall is that it may be a bit boring at parts, considering it is largely a collection of interviews. Also, the veracity of the film is going to be discussed for years to come, as I'm sure the Doctor's studies were...but you can watch the film on November 6, 2009 and come up with your own theories.

Speaking of theories, 2012 is a little film that may or may not have true evidence to back it. As you've surely heard, the world is ending around December 21, 2012, therefore a movie must be made to warn us! (and also dazzle us with an astoundingly high production budget). From the director of The Day After Tomorrow and Independence Day, 2012 tells the story of the cataclysmic event that will end the world and, possibly, the human race. It's a tale of, you guessed it, survival, but moreover the film seems to be a wildly expensive exercise in crazy special effects (as you could tell from the trailer's tidal waves, earthquakes, and even an aircraft carrier crashing into Congress). Will 2012 hold up beyond just morbid eye-candy? Find out when it hits theaters November 13, 2009.


Here's a worthy notable without a release date although it is scheduled to have its grand premiere on September 10, 2009: Creation. Creation is the biographical tale of Charles Darwin and his penning of "The Origin of Species." The film seems to set its focus on the "killing of God" idea that people had back then (and still do) in reference to his proving of evolution. Darwin is always a fun person to talk about and his works tend to strike up fun (if not battle-starting) conversation. The trailer shows Darwin in a very respectable light, and also shows that he isn't entirely sure of what his findings mean, but more that his colleagues egg him on to publish his findings and disprove the theory of God and even religions as a whole. His wife, however, is a deeply religious woman who fears for his life and her own if he makes his works public. It still has a "Coming Soon" status as of now, but I'm expecting it sometime this Winter.

Aaaand there you have it! Quite a varied array of films coming very, very, very soon to your nearest movie theater (or computer screen...jerks)! I hope you enjoyed my own personal take on the films, but I've barely grazed the surface of what there is to come in the Fall and beyond!

Kyle Shelton

District 9 Review: Makes Area 51 look like a Bouncy House

Aliens? Check.
Action? Check.
Blood and gore? Check.
Intelligent social commentary, originality, creativity, and outstanding special effects? Checkity check check.

Phenomenal new sci-fi movie? Super check.

These are all the workings of what surpasses the realms of a cheesy-yet-fun sci-fi flick and enters the extraterrestrial levels of true, awe-inspiring filmmaking. Coincidentally, these are all the workings of Neill Blomkamps breakout feature film, District 9, produced by Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson.

What makes District 9 more than just an alien shoot-em-up popcorn popper? It has a soul. District 9 is a movie that plays off several cinematic styles and masterfully interweaves them together into one feature that's sure to please the general public audience as well as intriguing the minds of those who really expect bigger things out of today's movies.

District 9 starts off as a documentary-style film, showcasing the mysterious UFO that hovers above Johannesburg, South Africa. Initially, military troops are flown in to investigate, and they find horribly malnourished life forms residing in the ship. After migrating them to Earth, the area they inhabited known as "District 9" soon becomes somewhat of a ghetto, with anti-alien extremists causing riots and starting a large campaign against the new citizens. 20 years later, a Multi-National Union member named Wikus van de Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is sent to District 9 to relocate the aliens to a concentration-camp style area over 200 kilometers away from Johannesburg.

As you can imagine, chaos ensues. Wikus is unintentionally sprayed by strange black fluid inside a tube found within an alien's shack. Progressively, he shows symptoms of being infected with something, and is soon hospitalized and found to have alien DNA in his body. This is where the documentary style of the film, opening with various interviews followed by camera footage of Wikus' operation, turns to the more narrative, traditional film style. However, you probably won't even realize it by how tightly the film grips your attention.

District 9 never lets you go, throughout the entire film. Imagine any good suspense or action film, and multiply its pull on you by about 1000, and you may be able to grasp the magnitude of District 9's influence on any given viewer. Quite honestly, the formula used for the screenplay is quite brilliant; giving you a back story on the present situation through realistic spectator commentary then switching to the actual events unfolding before your eyes then attacking your senses with exciting and energetic filmmaking, there exists no dull moments during the entire film. Even at its lowest points, you will be kept enthralled and entertained, wondering what will happen next.

While District 9 is a sci-fi funfest for any alien fanatics out there, it also serves as a more profound film, building upon aspects of real life problems like racism, apartheid, immigration, genocide, rioting, slum life and government power. It really makes you wonder how the world would take such an event as aliens coming to Earth on relatively civil grounds.

Alongside its deeper roots, though, lies what everyone is expecting: the action. And there is plenty of it. If you're a fan of aliens, robots, guns, explosions and blood/gore, you've picked the right movie. Limbs flying, firefighting, vehicles crashing...District 9 has it all for your viewing pleasure, and while the film does hold true to its "more than your average sci-fi" attitude, it still gives plenty of crowd-pleasing moments to get you even more involved in the already deeply-involving plot.

Also, kudos to actor Sharlot Copley who plays the main protagonist; he gives such an astounding performance that its hard to believe he's barely known in the film-world. To add to his magnificent and spellbinding act, most of his lines were improvised throughout the movie...yes, meaning he made up, off the top of his head, most of what he was saying, and pulled it off brilliantly.

What's more, Blomkamp made such great characters out of the alien race as a whole as well as the main alien you get attached to, Christopher. They feel incredibly real, which only adds to the overall feel of the movie: everything feels real. Besides their actual character and interactions, their rendering is exceptionally well done, given extremely detailed skin and facial expressions to make them uber-realistic. The plot is definitely plausible and District 9 tackles the ultimate "What if?" question with flying colors.

Hands down, District 9 is the best film of the Summer. It retains all the qualities of films like Transformers or G.I. Joe for the fun aspects, but still has a brain and a heart to embed it within the confines of sci-fi classics. 20 years from now, District 9 will still be heralded as the bar that needs to be raised in order for any new sci-fi film to hold even a dim light to it. Although some things are left unexplained, and a few holes lie within the overall plot, District 9 more than makes up for its shortcomings with a spectacular performance by Copley, exemplary special effects and a new, original story. These aliens are welcome...consider me a sympathizer.

9.5/10
Kyle Shelton

Inglourious Basterds Review: Quite Glorious, Actually

Ahh, Quentin Tarantino. Every film the man makes is his signature love note to all things cinema. Known for his fun crowd-pleasers, dark humor, over-the-top violence and ridiculous situations, he almost never seems to disappoint.

With a reinvented World War II B-movie/noir-esque presentation, does he still retain the same pizazz he has in the past? Or does he finally fall flat beneath the heaps of more entertaining cinema in the market today?

Quite the Glorious bastard Quentin is with his newly original "Inglourious Basterds."

Inglourious tells the initially unrelated but interwoven tales of revenge of Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and his troop of ravenous, vengeful misfits as well as the innocent victim of Nazi war Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent). After Shoshanna tries to hide from Nazi "Jew-Hunter" Hans Landa (Cristoph Waltz), he realizes of their hiding place and kills off her family, accidentally letting her go and run away. Years later, she is seen owning her own movie theater, unwittingly being pitted directly into the heart of the Nazi body when a German soldier garners an extreme attraction to her. Lt. Aldo Raine, on the other hand, is simply out to to "do one thing and one thing only...killin' Nazis." He, along with his Jewish-American covert squad of Nazi haters, formulate a plot to assassinate Hitler along with the Nazi hierarchy.

At its most basic, Inglourious is a simple yet fun roller coaster ride of revenge and blood-splattering hilarity. When examined on a deeper scale, though, it has its more creative and nuanced merit (similar to the stupid-fun style Kill Bill has on its surface, but its much more emotionally-rooted story and style found after appreciating it for more than its skin-deep beauty). Inglourious keeps all the Tarantino-isms: darkly comical situations, extremely heightened tension, long yet interesting dialogue, and artistically refined depictions of violence. Its all here...but even if you hated Tarantino's style before, Inglourious still deserves a chance if only for its last 30 minutes of utter brilliant filmmaking.

Within the film are several interesting cameos including Julie Dreyfus (Kill Bill), Mike Myers (Austin Powers), Eli Roth (director of Hostel), Harvey Keitel (Reservoir Dogs), Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction) and B.J. Novak (The Office), which propel the film into somewhat of an ensemble surprise cast. But the actual starring cast is what makes Inglourious even better than what it already is, specifically the performances of the lovable Brad Pitt, the intriguing Melanie Laurent, and especially the powerhouse performance of Christoph Waltz. It seems as if each of the characters (Aldo Raine, Shoshanna Dreyfus, and Hans Landa, respectively) were written specifically for each actor, as I couldn't perceive anyone else playing them successfully. Also notable is the fine talent of Diane Kruger as Bridget von Hammersmark, the seductive and famed actress who is a critical piece of the German resistance puzzle.

In the sense of story, its all played out masterfully, with certain characters knowing certain things for certain reasons and others not knowing said things for certain reasons. When you're not being treated to an enjoyable conversation or silly B-movie fare that Tarantino is known for exploiting, your blood pressure runs high on an indescribably tense scene that ultimately leads to a surprising, if not at least sensory shattering, climax. This is done both in the writing, which would make for an equally excellent novel, as well as the technical and physical execution of the directing and acting.

While Inglourious may not be for everyone's taste, Tarantino has once again proved that he has the talent and genius to produce such fine films. The pacing may be a little off, and the marketing for the film shines it in a light of nonstop action and ridiculousness. This may not be exactly what you get, because there do exist quite a number of long conversational scenes and drawn-out build-ups to any given climax. But, that's just the way Tarantino does his thing and its not a big problem to me. In fact, I would place this WWII exploitation dramedy up with the ranks of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. He always places so many subtle tidbits of fun (like having the film within the film "Nation's Pride" directed by Eli Roth or having the allusion to the title on Raine's rifle) that just make the movie cake that much more delicious.

In simple conclusion, Inglourious Basterds is probably the best film the Summer's mainstream box office has to offer and an irrefutably bombastic end to the Summer as a whole. Tarantino is the one-man Pixar; offering up an enjoyable dish whenever he can and making it last till his next, undoubtedly brilliant offering. Remembering that Tarantino has a peculiar yet artistic style and flare, go forth and enjoy Inglourious Basterds for all its glorious perfections (and also, rally to give Waltz some kind of large-scale acting award for his mesmerizing performance).

9.5/10
Kyle Shelton

Brüno Review: Ist Good, Yah?

In all honesty, I was going to open this review with a Borat quote...but Bruno has brainwashed me into forgetting them and only remembering things like "Vassup?" and "Isht."

Luckily, that's pretty much what Sacha Baron Cohen was shooting for in his latest mockumentary, "Brüno." If you saw Borat, you know pretty much what to expect...an all-out jerky shockfest of gags and pranks gone awry with unsuspecting everyday people at the helm of the S.S. Embarassment. Borat was great, so does the gay Austrian fashionista have what it takes to push Borat out of the slapstick throne?

If anything, I'll put Bruno on par with Borat comedy-wise...but, be aware, Brüno is about 4x as nasty and cringe-worthy as Borat was. With that, let's begin:

Brüno is an Austrian fashion talk show host who seems to be at the top of his gayme (game and gay put together..ahh thank you) in the celebrity world. After ruining a fashion show by wearing an all-velcro suit, he is then blacklisted by all the clubs and talent areas in Austria, and is left to search for fame elsewhere. He decides on traveling to Los Angeles, California to shoot up the ranks of stardom and become the biggest celebrity the world has ever known.

And that's the story...along his travels, he tries a cornucopia of varied attempts at fame such as hosting a talk show, becoming straight, and even making a sex-tape. Now, Brüno is certainly a difficult film to "critique" in the sense of looking for true skill and talent...all of that lies within Cohen's acting skill and the writing that took place, although much of it is improv. Brüno is considered a "mockumentary" due to the style of shooting that resembles a documentary but is also a parodied "mockery" of such. Other than Cohen, the only other characters you'll see (other than his assistant Lutz played by Gustaf Hammarsten) are completely innocent average-joes in America. Cohen plays his fabulously gay role with flying colors (no pun intended) and surpasses Borat in almost every way.

Along with Cohen's acting skill comes his incredible audacity in his filmmaking. Whether you like the film or not or believe some of it is real or not, you can't say Cohen and his crew aren't bold. This kind of shock-and-awe style of comedy can be hit-or-miss at times, but it will almost always have you looking away, dropping your jaw, or cringing in some way. Brüno seems to want to satisfy that young, mature audience rather than stretching for the older generations, and it does so perfectly. Theaters were guaranteed to be packed with old teens vying to get their gag-reflexes curdling and their eyes widened, and Brüno does just that. Luckily, its hilarious at every turn. Practically every single stunt encountered will have you, if not turned away, laughing for an extended period of time. But Brüno doesn't always do so with stupid, gross-out humor; at its core, much like Borat, Brüno has a deeper social commentary that you'll leave the theater realizing. He touches, primarily, homophobia and the kind of persecution homosexuals face, but also on the ignorance of many people and despair of many fame-seekers who will sign their life away for the limelight. In short, Brüno captures the essence of stupidity among many people and approaches such controversy with more, humorous, controversy.

But this isn't to say that Brüno is perfect. For its many laughs and brave efforts, Brüno still lacks that last cinematic umph to set it in real motion. Brüno feels more like a television special than a movie, and considering it grew from a British comedy show, this isn't too much of a surprise. Other than its simple theme of ignorance and idiocy within our population and its over-the-top, raunchy humor, Brüno really has nothing going for it. Its just one hyped-up, extraordinarily long YouTube video, composed of pranks, quotables, and conversation-starters. Even in its humor, its easy to feel a bit insulted by Cohen's stunts. Considering all my rage against Transformers 2's lame and cheap humor, its kind of impossible for me to hold Brüno in high regard for the same stuff (albeit Brüno was much more ridiculous than Transformers was). By the end, you may feel like an idiot for having paid upwards of $7 to see a gay man freak out conservatives, homophobes, and talent-seekers for an hour and a half. And what's more, Brüno is almost an exact replica, story-wise, of Borat. I can't give any spoilers away, but from beginning to end, Brüno definitely feels like a cookie-cutter copy of its predecessor, and this definitely takes away from the originality and creativity felt throughout the rest of the film.

Then again, Brüno is just plain entertaining and, by all definitions, interesting. Plenty complained about this film being a waste of money, stupid, disgusting, volatile, etc...but what were you expecting? In fact, I've heard of people walking out of the film...but perhaps that's just a reflection of what the movie, on a slightly deeper level, was all about? Through its ridiculous presentation lies a message; said message may be covered in pretentious Borat-fueled success humor, but its there nonetheless. Brüno never fails on its main premise: to shock. And as much as you may hate this movie, you're going to laugh with trepidation toward the following scenes. Luckily, if you hate the rest of the movie, the final song at the end will, no doubt, win you over. If you don't want to be grossed out, surprised or shallowly entertained, Brüno is not for you. For any of its shortcomings, though, Brüno stands tall as a comedy powerhouse, with Cohen giving a spectacular performance and shooting himself to an even higher level of international stardom. You have to respect the man for this kind of work and for daring to take such high-risk chances. Brüno is certainly an entertaining spectacle from beginning to end, and I enjoyed every second of what I actually saw.

8.0/10
-Kyle Shelton

Transformers Revenge of the Fallen Review: Fallen Oh So Very Far.

The quintessential blockbuster cash-in has finally arrive...Michael Bay directs part two of the Transfomers saga, Revenge of the Fallen. Naturally, you'll probably go see it and be wowed like a kid at a Disney fireworks show...but does Transformers really have the umpf to propel it into an actual "good" film?

No.

Simply put, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is just a stupid movie all-around. Now, stupid doesn't necessarily mean bad, but Transformers has transcended the threshold of inconsistency and incoherent story-telling into the realms of just plain insulting.

The second installment in the Transformers revamp deals with Sam (Shia LaBeouf) and his leaving from home into the college life. He leaves behind his car/Transformer Bumblebee and his girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox). After inexplicably finding a shard of the "Allspark Cube" from the previous film, Shia is attacked by miniature Decepticons and realizes how important the piece is. Giving the remnant to Mikaela to keep safe, Sam goes off to college only to be followed by his beloved Transfomer companion Bumblebee, who informs him that there's trouble afoot. A mythical rogue robot known as "The Fallen" awaits patiently in space for the right moment to return to earth and engage a machine that will destroy the world by exploding the sun.

That's what the writers' strike of 2007-2008 will do to you, I suppose. And we're left with explosions out the yin-yang and Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots beating the bejesus out of each other for a good 2 hours. What's not to like, right?

First of all, if the story didn't seem lame and cliche enough, the actual dialogue that takes place is on the cheap and lazy side. Instilled humor within an action movie is nothing new, and we've come to expect that from a movie like Transformers, but when the comedy relies on raunchy jokes, stereotypes, or rehashed jokes from the first film for most of its humor, there's a problem. The writers had a serious falling out when they were writing this script...or perhaps they were just desperately trying to appeal to the mass media public that will pay any set price to watch things go boom and laugh at thrifty attempts at comedy. Sure, I laughed, only in good fun to keep in tune with the pacing of the film. But each time, I felt like I was dumbing myself down. A good portion of the jokes comes directly from two Transformers who act like stereotypical black thugs, gold teeth and all. Also, the level of cursing has risen significantly this time around...and its not even from the humans. No, its from the Transformers and Decepticons. Honestly, its just a bit sad to finally realize that everything that's meant to be funny in the film is only funny because they are performed by monstrous machines of destruction-dealing. That, folks, is a gimmick.

Speaking of gimmicks, there's almost as much product placement in the film as there are explosions. Now, with a Michael Bay film, you may think that's nearly impossible...but let's not forget the kind of budget Transformers was riding on and who its target audience is. Yes, teens, teens, and more teens. Enjoy the film, and also, go out and buy a new LG phone with digital television capability! Oh, and don't forget how fantastic Bad Boys 2 was because Michael Bay won't let you.

But yes, of course we have to give the nod to Mr. Bay for his fantastic and compulsory use of dynamite, fire, C4 charges, cannons, artillery, fireworks and matches...or whatever he uses for his special effects. Explosions galore are included in Transformers 2 and may even win the record of most explosions ever seen in a full-fledged feature film, at least by Bay. I wish I had mustered the nerve to actually count how many there actually were, but another nod goes to him for his cartoony immersion of the Transformers universe. Throughout the entire film, you will feel like you're watching a cartoon that's just updated. Although, some of Bay's direction techniques irked me, particularly his use of the Sun in several shots that seemed pointless and distracting. I'm not really sure how many times you would have to pan across a conversation with the Sun glaring at you to get this point across: the Sun exists. We get it, Michael Bay. Thank you.

As for the alien robots themselves, they look spectacular. They're all richly detailed as they were in the first film, but seem to have gotten quite the technical upgrade in the sequel. The animation is more fluid, especially the actual transforming, and they're incredibly well-rendered. Many kudos to the CGI team for really pushing the envelope with the Transformers and Decepticons. But, there's a major problem with the CGI and that lies within the action sequences. It's hard to really tell what's actually going on in any given fight other than seeing a punch or two here or a missile being shot there. Otherwise, its just a jumbled mess of fighting where parts are flying everywhere due to who-knows-what and spontaneous explosions occurring. This is probably due to many of the metallic parts looking similar, so it might take a second for that head being split in half to actually register in your mind.

That's where the positives stop, however, considering the acting is dreadful. As beautiful as Megan Fox is and as much as I love her real-life personality, she doesn't cut it as an actress. Literally, she's only in movies to get the men wild, and that is another GIMMICK. Fox cannot act to save her life; she's completely unconvincing, shallow, boring, and looks like she's trying to show off her body as much as humanly possible. Shia LaBeouf, though, is a little bit better on the acting scale but that's not really saying much. He has hope and the ability to become a fantastic actor, however, but needs a little more time doing movies that challenge him rather than playing a simpleton who gets picked by aliens to do their bidding. Sam's mom, though, played by Julie White, is actually pretty hysterical and quite the slapstick artist. She's adorable as the attached mother who's afraid to see her little baby grow up and be just flat-out silly about it. The dad, though, is just a 2-dimensional character thrown into the movie for...well, nothing more than to give Sam a dad, I guess. Luckily, John Turturro returns as Seymour Simmons and is a fine, welcome face in the otherwise dreary pool of washed up actors.

Transformers also leaves a lot to be desired in many senses. I'm not a Tranny (Transformers fanatic), but I still don't understand the whole plot line for The Fallen and his relationship to the Decepticons and Transformers. Apparently, he just wants to destroy Earth. That's about it, and the Decepticons are just coming back to retrieve their precious Allspark shard and destroy the Transformers yet again. Oh, when will they learn? Probably not for another 493 sequels. I mean, it probably was described in some shallow, contrived, overly complex voice over spot, but its an issue that its hard to comprehend without researching it afterward. Also, its a tad bit strange to see these robots spew liquid...as in, they cry and spit. Why do they do that? Its completely unnecessary and inconsistent and serves no real purpose other than slight comedy.

Tadaa! Transformers in a nutshell:

-Novice story-telling
-Cheap thrills
-Shallow humor
-Boring acting
-Gimmicky
-Full of product placement
-Cliche
-Uninteresting human characters
-Completely irrelevant romantic subplot
-Been-There-Done-That storyline
-Frenetic and incomprehensible action sequences

Thank the Bay gods for the indisputably fun overall experience and some magical-looking robots. All in all, watching Transformers 2 will make you feel like a kid again, especially if you watched the show. Yep, it'll make you feel like that lazy, potato chip-eating, homework-skipping, test-ditching, gun-obsessed, anime-watching 12 year old all over again...ahh, the good old days.

2.5/10

-Kyle Shelton

Zombieland Preview: Amuzement and Zany Zombie Fun For All!

Well, if you know me personally, then you know that I am a sucker for anything having to do with zombies, pirates, ninjas, robots, dinosaurs, or any conglomerate combination of the such. Well, I look out for zombie movies in particular because they are a bit difficult to create well. Luckily, though, Woody Harrelson is here to save the day...I give you Zombieland:



Now, from this trailer, we can deduce one thing: Zombieland is meant almost entirely to be a comedy schlock-and-awe type of film. So if you're looking for some Romero recall, look elsewhere; this is all fun and games, even after an eye gets poked out. From several glances, Zombieland seems to tell the tale of a group of adolescents who find solace from the overrun world of zombies with a rebellious drifter-type badass named Tallahassee played by Harrelson. The cuts of all the different weapons being used, the "zombie kill of the week" clip, and the sarcastic, documentary-esque voiceover all point to one thing: fun.

And the camera work and visual style are a little different looking, but I can't put my finger on how, exactly. It looks a tad bit low-budget, which is fine especially considering its a zombie flick, and just seems like its unprofessional. You could probably ignore this entire paragraph, but I like it because it looks to be a shallow yet exciting and interesting feature. When an old lady drops a piano on a crazy, carniverous undead mutant, you know its going to be a good time. Bill Murray, Abigail Breslin, Emma Stone, and Jesse Eisenberg are also slated to star.

At any rate, keep your eyes peeled, if you're into zombies and gore films like I am anyway, for Zombieland, hitting theaters this October!