Happy almost Halloween everybody! It's time for a review of the weekend's big box-office hit. The Paranormal Activity series or as I like to call it the "obsessive camera guy with absurd amounts of spare time and incredibly spacious haunted luxury home" series (maybe their name for it is better) has done quite well over the last few years, and I rather like the tonal shift away from the torture porn movies that reigned as king in the aughts. To paraphrase another review, I like the type of horror this series does, and I like the audiences that go to see it. That said, is this film any good? Let's find out.
Paranormal Activity 3 - This film is a prequel to the previous films. We have a short clip of Katie (of films one and two) and her sister Kristi pregnant with Hunter in 2005 (prior to either 2 movies) and then we jump back further in time to September 1988, a month after I was born. I'm wondering if Paranormal Activity 4 will feature Katie in utero development with haunted ultrasound photos. Her family seems to go through this debacle regularly. The movie reveals that she was not always plagued by a demon but perhaps inherited him from her sister...which PA2 already implied. There's not much else this movie sheds light on that doesn't verge into the kind of awkward, reminding me almost of The Last Exorcism.
In terms of plot, the film is rather light. So there's not much to do but sit back and play I Spy. If that's your thing (and if, like me you saw the past two movies, it is) great. If not, or you dislike horror movies altogether, than by all means stay away. The movie does not verge from the now well established formula of the prior movies, and that's rather disappointing. Worse yet, the movie forgets what was, for me, the scariest part of the first (and still reigning scare champ) film: the minimalist but still frightening sounds. You can explode all the kitchen chairs or move the furniture up to the ceiling, but an almost inaudible growl or roar leaves me cringing.
Familiarity builds contempt, and the filmmakers have all but exhausted their bag of tricks it seems. Two or three or six cameras does not a better film make. And while I love the subtle slow build over the jump scare any day of the week, I confess I'm rather tired of the found footage device. When a child is crying in a corner, would you not put the camera down to comfort them? When a menace is apparent, would you not grab say - a knife or blunt implement - rather than slowly advance with a camera? It's the "He's right behind you! Don't split up! Don't open that door! For gods sakes, get a clue from that creepy music!" of our generation.
I had some chills and there are some suspenseful moments, albeit nothing compared to the first movie which left me too scared to sleep for hours. The ending is kind of a letdown, and I guessed early what at least part of the source of the trouble is, and you will too. I just hope the filmmakers don't pull a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" to try and further undermine the spookfactor of "Toby".
More of the same, Paranormal Activity 3 gets a
B-
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
Drive review
Drive - Meant to do this one last week. In any case, Drive is a much heralded movie with a 93% on RottenTomatoes.com, and my notoriously hard to please friend enjoyed it. That said, did I like it? Well, yes and no. But more on that later.
A driver who will take any (five-minute long) job gets into trouble when a job goes wrong and he must fight mobsters and thugs to protect himself, a young mother and her son.
Drive stars Ryan Gosling stars as "The Driver". This lack of a name, or any major characterization beyond the man's mechanical purpose in the film, is telling as to just what sort of movie this film really is. It's a B-movie, with all the positives and negative attributed to that sort of movie. Drive relishes in the simple definitions and sense of morality that would make Stallone proud (Cobra and Rambo were B-movies after all). The Driver and a young boy are watching a cartoon and a Shark with legs appears onscreen. "He's the Bad Guy" one of them says. "How can you tell?" the other replies. We know, and we don't need explanations or motivations. Who says the 50s are dead? We still consider ourselves to be our jobs, and we judge overly on appearances.
I enjoyed the way the first half of this movie plays out. Actually, I really enjoyed the way the first five minutes of the movie play out. It's tight, nail-bitingly suspenseful, and without a drop of blood. The first half of the film is almost a different beast altogether from the rest of the film. It's serene, interesting, and not much is said. But then how much of what we say in the real world is that important? Small talk prevails, as meaningful subjects are avoided. We all die wishing we'd said more and meant more. The first half of the movie was like a poetic mirror. I actually lost myself in some of the vast pauses in conversation. Maybe I read too much into it.
Drive has a fantastic supporting cast and, in my opinion, wastes a few of my favorite TV actors. Anything is proportionally better the more Christina Hendricks is used. Unfortunately, by Hollywood standards, she's far too beautiful (in a lioness way) to be cast as anything other than the woman who is not to be trusted. It's weird to see Bryan Cranston with hair (Jessie!) and I would have liked to have seen more of him as well.
I thought the soundtrack to be another of Drive's stronger points. The cinematography is also excellent. Unfortunately, someone got splattergore in my cool suspense film. Yes, the second half of the film is an over-the-top Tarantino level of violence. It's unnecessary, and the film can do nothing but take it completely seriously or risk an even weirder tonal shift from the first half of the movie. It offers a mildly interesting contrariness to the serene/suspenseful first half of the movie, but then, so would putting a severed head next to a Mona Lisa. That doesn't mean I would enjoy seeing that either. Oh Drive, I had high hopes for you. Maybe someday there can be a mainstream art picture without a bodycount. Alas, we do not live in that civilized a day. Our hands too, are dirty. Drive, which is at the end of the day a B-movie, gets a
B.
A driver who will take any (five-minute long) job gets into trouble when a job goes wrong and he must fight mobsters and thugs to protect himself, a young mother and her son.
Drive stars Ryan Gosling stars as "The Driver". This lack of a name, or any major characterization beyond the man's mechanical purpose in the film, is telling as to just what sort of movie this film really is. It's a B-movie, with all the positives and negative attributed to that sort of movie. Drive relishes in the simple definitions and sense of morality that would make Stallone proud (Cobra and Rambo were B-movies after all). The Driver and a young boy are watching a cartoon and a Shark with legs appears onscreen. "He's the Bad Guy" one of them says. "How can you tell?" the other replies. We know, and we don't need explanations or motivations. Who says the 50s are dead? We still consider ourselves to be our jobs, and we judge overly on appearances.
I enjoyed the way the first half of this movie plays out. Actually, I really enjoyed the way the first five minutes of the movie play out. It's tight, nail-bitingly suspenseful, and without a drop of blood. The first half of the film is almost a different beast altogether from the rest of the film. It's serene, interesting, and not much is said. But then how much of what we say in the real world is that important? Small talk prevails, as meaningful subjects are avoided. We all die wishing we'd said more and meant more. The first half of the movie was like a poetic mirror. I actually lost myself in some of the vast pauses in conversation. Maybe I read too much into it.
Drive has a fantastic supporting cast and, in my opinion, wastes a few of my favorite TV actors. Anything is proportionally better the more Christina Hendricks is used. Unfortunately, by Hollywood standards, she's far too beautiful (in a lioness way) to be cast as anything other than the woman who is not to be trusted. It's weird to see Bryan Cranston with hair (Jessie!) and I would have liked to have seen more of him as well.
I thought the soundtrack to be another of Drive's stronger points. The cinematography is also excellent. Unfortunately, someone got splattergore in my cool suspense film. Yes, the second half of the film is an over-the-top Tarantino level of violence. It's unnecessary, and the film can do nothing but take it completely seriously or risk an even weirder tonal shift from the first half of the movie. It offers a mildly interesting contrariness to the serene/suspenseful first half of the movie, but then, so would putting a severed head next to a Mona Lisa. That doesn't mean I would enjoy seeing that either. Oh Drive, I had high hopes for you. Maybe someday there can be a mainstream art picture without a bodycount. Alas, we do not live in that civilized a day. Our hands too, are dirty. Drive, which is at the end of the day a B-movie, gets a
B.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)