Paranormal Activity

*****
Two Stars Out of Five

Every few years or so a new, neat indie horror movie shows up. It ignores the status quo (the torture-porn made famous by the atrocious "Saw" franchise, for example) and there is suddenly a massive groundswell of support in favor of said movie. People proclaim it's the "scariest movie ever," paramedics inexplicably have to show up at screenings to take away some dipshit who can't handle suspense, and in some extreme cases, there are morons who think what they're watching on screen is real. It happened first with "Cannibal Holocaust" in the 80's and was followed up by a bunch of stupid "Faces of Death" crap. The best example of this is of course "The Blair Witch Project," which, for a short time anyway, many believed to be actual unearthed documentary footage of three jackasses attempting to find a witch.

So, it's been exactly 10 years since "The Blair Witch Project" was released, and in that ensuing 10 years, all of the morons who believed it was real must have raised equally moronic children who are stupid and gullible enough to believe that something shown in movie theaters nation-wide could actually show real people being killed by a malevolent and supernatural force. A little over a month ago, I began seeing advertisements for a new movie called "Paranormal Activity." The ads were centered mostly on audience reaction and the above-mentioned paramedic responses necessary for witnessing such a terrifying movie. This instantly led me to believe that, whatever the movie was about, it was going to be crap. I want to see movies, so sell the movie, not audience reaction (incidentally, the best part about seeing the movie in theaters was actually the audience reaction; I heard more prepubescent "Oh, my God" proclamations than one should ever have to endure). I remained cautiously optimistic anyway, since I love horror movies, and I got to see it today. What did I think? Why, read on, of course!

The movie is centered on a mid-20's couple in San Diego. Micah and Katie (played by Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston, respectively) have been co-habitating (probably why they're being haunted, the heathens) and are quite in love. We meet the couple after Micah buys a nifty video camera to chronicle their domestic adventures with the supernatural. Turns out they have been having a few late-night visits by an otherworldly force and Micah is determined to get hard evidence of the occurence. One of the first things they have a psychic stop by to help them out with their problem. The psychic does little to help, simply informing them that they're dealing with a demon - not a ghost - and that he can't do anything for them. Katie does reveal that this isn't the first time she's been messed with by a supernatural force; rather, it's happened several times throughout her life. What follows is a bunch of long nights for Micah and Katie...

The film's writer/director, Oren Peli, made the flick with a paltry $15,000 budget, so it's hard to pick too many nits with the film's problems. It's kind of like picking on the poor kid in school because he's still wearing a Starter pull-over jacket. But I'm a critic, and sometimes I have to be harsh, whether I want to or not. If this was a straight-to-video release, I might not be so rough on it, but considering it was a theatrical release, I have to hold it to a (much) higher standard. The biggest complaint I have with the film concerns the way it's presented to the audience. I don't mind the faux-documentary-style that is becoming more and more prominent in today's multiplexes, but if that's what you're going to do, then get rid of the silly, stupid character moments that don't work and simply present the goods. What worked so well in "Cloverfield," and "Diary of the Dead" just doesn't work as well here because it's a faux-documentary with convenient cuts that create a narrative and flow that really wouldn't be there if it were being filmed in reality. Really, why would you videotape yourself watching and/or listening to footage not you've clearly already witnessed? It unnecessarily pads the film's runtime and just re-shows the audience something they just watch a few minutes earlier.

The ill-advised decisions extend to the characters, as well. These are seriously some stupid fucking people. They do everything you wouldn't do in an event such as this, and it really pulls you out of the movie. It's not like a slasher flick where we expect the characters to behave stupidly and conveniently fall in the woods so the killer can catch up. Nope, this is supposed to be "real," remember? So make the characters behave realistically, not like stock characters in any run-of-the-mill horror movie. They figure out they're dealing with a demon and ignore the psychic's recommendation to call a demonologist. Micah goes out of his way to antagonize the demon by calling it out and trying to communicate with it with a Ouija board - even after he was told not to. Micah argues with Katie not to call the demonologist because it's his house and Katie is "his girl" and he's supposed to "protect her." Really?!?! Of all the times to swing your dick and puff out your chest and be a man, you choose the moment when you're being hunted by a demon? And, of course, the biggest blunder of all is that Katie ignores the first several encounters she's had with the demon - dating back to when she was 8 - and seeks zero help in regards to the matter. Again, it's mind-numbingly stupid, and the decisions the characters make really hurt the film.

But it's a horror movie, right? It's about the scares and not the story, right? Well, that's half-right. A movie like "Friday the 13th" can skate by on stupid characters and minimal plot, but not a movie like this that presents itself as real. But it is still a horror movie, so if the scares are there, it can at least soften the blow made by poor story. Unfortunately, there aren't any real scares in the movie. It's all suspense and build-up with no pay off. It's like getting a really big birthday present and tearing off the pretty and elaborately designed wrapping paper to realize it's just an empty box. There are genuine moments of suspense to be had, but they never really lead to anything memorable. Maybe empty suspense is enough for the youngsters with their damn hip-hop, Hannah Montana, and shiny Ugg boots, but this old fella needs something more substantial.

Arguably the biggest issue of the film is what we learn early on: the demon won't ever leave Katie alone. This is just stupid story-telling, because roughly 15 minutes into the movie, we learn that this isn't going to end well for Katie. The movie removes any sense of conflict for the audience, and it's hard to sustain interest in characters we know are doomed from the get-go. We know Micah and Katie can't get rid of the demon, so what the hell is the point of the damn movie?

Ultimately, it's just too hard to recommend this movie to anybody. I appreciate the effort that the director and cast put forth, and they really did accomplish something by making a successful movie with just $15,000, but it's just not very good. The characters are largely forgettable and stupid, and there is nothing for the audience to get invested in, as we learn early on that there is no way for Katie to rid herself of the demon. In the end, it's just another stupid horror movie that sells itself on audience reactions. Sigh.

Capitalism: A Love Story

*****
Five Stars Out of Five

Well, I finally got to see it. I've been waiting a few weeks for it to be released in my hometown. I received the news that it wasn't going to come here, so my girlfriend and I decided to head an hour away in order to see it. It was worth it.

I suppose I should say right away that Michael Moore is a divisive figure. He's loved by the left and loathed by the right. That makes him awesome, in my book. I'm a hardcore liberal, so if your belief system doesn't coincide with mine, or you're not open to alternate viewpoints, you might want to sit this review out. Still there? Good. Republicans - Reagan, Bush, et. al. - suck. Still there? Okay, just checking. Moore is responsible for documentaries like "Roger and Me," "Bowling For Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "Sicko." He's a very liberal individual who isn't afraid to take the conservative movement head on. All of his movies have thus far focused mainly on one specific issue - corporate greed, America's obsession with guns, George W. Bush's idiocy, and the failing healthcare system in America. They are all really good, entertaining documentaries, even if "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a bit too heavy-handed and biased.

Bad news for Moore-bashers out there: "Capitalism: A Love Story" is easily his most bipartisan picture to date. For every prominent Republican he attacks or exposes, there's a Democrat he is giving the same treatment to. In contrast to his earlier pictures, though, "Capitalism: A Love Story" has a much broader scope. He addresses absolutely everything from what exactly capitalism is (there are some hilarious scenes from old propaganda videos), what caused the mortgage crisis, the beginning of deregulation under Reagan, the continuation of deruglation under Dubya, big corporations taking advantage of employees, the billion-dollar bailouts, and many other topics. It's a sprawling documentary that covers a lot of topics, and it surprisingly doesn't get bogged down under heavy-handed exposition or biased narrative.

Moore makes it clear early on in the film that he's not an anti-capitalist at heart; rather, he hates what capitalism has become and what it allows big corporations to get away with. Capitalism, as it exists in America today, allows companies like Wal-Mart and AT&T to profit from their employee's deaths, and Moore exposes this for the audience. He chronicles the tragic experience of a family in Peoria, Illinois that refinanced their mortgage at the urging of their bank, only to eventually lose their house and be evicted by the bank that claimed to be "helping" them. There is a particularly powerful scene involving this family that actually brought a tear to my eyes. I won't describe the scene here, simply so people can experience the tragedy for themselves unabashedly.

In an ingenious twist, Moore exposes the hypocrisy inherent in many of the religious right that now has such a strong grip on middle-America. If there is one sequence in the movie that will get Republicans riled up, it is this. Moore, who is a life-long Catholic, quotes passages from the Bible in which Jesus speaks out against the rich. For your consideration, here are some lines from the Bible:
-"Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." [Luke 12.15.]
-"Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." [Matthew 19:23]

There are other quotes you can find to support the theory that Jesus doesn't like greedy people (it's one of those pesky seven sins, after all), yet Moore uses this as a way of showing how many on the right will quote the Bible when it comes to abortion, or gay marriage, yet they mysteriously ignore passages that incite us to help out the poor man, and look out for the little guy. There are several interviews with members of the clergy that really round this out, and it's another great sequence in the movie.

The only time the film gets a little too off-base is when Moore covers the recent election of Barack Obama. I'm a supporter of Obama, yet this section of the film felt too preachy for me. I understand Moore's assertion here - that maybe the people of America are getting fed up with the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer, and are willing to inject some new blood into politics - but Moore elevates Obama to almost Messianic levels here, and it can distract more middle-of-the-road viewers.

In the end, I encourage everyone to go see this movie. Moore does a tremendous job of explaining how our economy has collapsed into the recession we're currently struggling with, and many of those responsible for it. It's sad to see that so many people still whole-heartedly support an ideology that has crippled our economy and has pushed many Americans out of their homes. I'm not saying Capitalism is horrible, it's just not realistic in the type of world we live in today. We need oversight and we need regulation. That doesn't make us Communists or Socialists, it makes us smart and prepared.

In sobering fashion, Moore closes the documentary with footage of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt urging Americans to adopt a second Bill of Rights. Like Moore, I will end this review the same way.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt, January 11, 1944

Zombieland

*****
Three Stars Out of Five

I really was excited to see "Zombieland." If you know me at all, it's really no secret I'm a fan of the zombie genre. I've got a buttload of zombie movies taking up space on my DVD shelves, one of my favorite comic book series is "The Walking Dead," (soon to be a TV show!), and I enjoy hypothetical discussions with friends that start with "What would you do in the event of a zombie apocalypse?" So, it's a good time to be a zombie fan. Just a few years ago, the classic "Shaun of the Dead" was released, and two years ago brought the excellent "28 Weeks Later." All in all, a solid couple years for zombie lovers, and the news of "Zombieland" only made me more and more excited.

A light-hearted "zomedy" about a world overtaken by zombies? Count me right in. Unfortunately, the end result is just good, not great. And I expected greatness, so I was a little disappointed. It's still an 0ften-funny, sometimes gory black comedy, it just falls short of greatness due to it's lack of zombies for a large chunk of the flick. Who would've thought that a movie with the name "Zombieland" would have so few zombies for it's second act?

The set-up is simple, and pretty much formulaic at this point: a zombie virus breaks out, and pretty much everybody in the world becomes a zombie, minus a few people here and there. The protagonist we follow is a young college student who is roaming around Texas, trying to make his way to Columbus, Ohio, where his family lives. He runs into a guy who absolutely LOVES killing zombies. When the two meet, they do not exchange names - names inevitably lead to connection, so when that person dies (which they probably will, due to the zombies), you feel less because you don't actually know that person. Instead, they call each other by the name of the city they hail from. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is the nerdy college student, and Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) is the bad-ass zombie killer. They quickly meet up with two others: a young girl, Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), and her older sister, Wichita (Emma Stone). They ultimately decide to head to California where there is an amusement park Little Rock wants to go to. Hell, it's the end of the world. You might as well go nuts on free rollercoasters, right?

Like I said, the plot is rather formulaic for zombie fare, but the movie takes a lighter approach to the zombie apocalypse than most others. Thankfully, we are introduced to the world well after the virus has taken over, so there's no introductory scenes where people struggle with killing their now deceased loved one. It's nice to not have to deal with a 20-minute exposition where the characters have no idea what's going on, while the audience knows full-well how to deal with zombies already.

These aren't typical zombies, either. They're not Romero zombies - the ones that slowly fall towards their prey and generally act like retarded fat kids. Nor are they the Danny Boyle infected - the insanely fast, must-have-been-Olympic-runners-before-being-infected-zombies. Nope, they're kind of a mixture between the two; they run, but not too fast, and it doesn't take a head-shot to put them down. A solid blast to the chest seems to do it here. It's a bit hard to get over not requiring headshots to kill them, but that's a minor grievance that only the most hardened zombie fan will bitch about.

So, in a world with only a few dozen people left, how are they? Well, Tallahassee is awesome, of course. This guy LOVES killing zombies, and he's incredibly good at it, too. He realizes he's smarter than the zombies, and he always keeps this in mind when thinking of new and interesting ways to dispatch these evil shitheads. Columbus is basically a throwaway character. Maybe it's because I'm getting a little tired of the nerd-protagonist who is always uneasy around the attractive girl he's ultimately (and inexplicably) going to get with. Maybe it's because I'm just not a fan of Jesse Eisenberg; he's got a voice that reminds me of a whiny, smart-ass little shit that thinks he knows too much about life, and everything I've seen him in just reminds me of a low-rent Michael Cera (nobody can do angsty-awkwardsness like that kid). Either way, his character is just a bit of a miss for me. Wichita and Little Rock are both good enough, and as characters, they do more than enough to push the narrative forward.

But at the end of the day, we go see zombie movies to see zombies get killed, right? Gorehounds love seeing zombies get dismembered and beheaded in new and interesting ways. This is where the movie hits a glitch. There's not that much zombie-killing to be had, and the deaths that do occur are largely unoriginal. There is a scene early on that promises to be cool, but the kill happens off-screen. That's just a kick in the nuts. The kills we do get to see are pretty funny, but a lot of it is stuff I've seen in other movies, just played for laughs this time instead of jumps. It works for the most part, but nothing here even contends with the lawnmower scene in "Dead Alive," or even the celebrity-lookalike sniping scene from the 2004 remake of "Dawn of the Dead."

In the end, this is a fun diversion for 90 minutes, but it doesn't do anything special(other than an amazingly funny cameo I won't dare spoil) to separate itself from the zombie-crowd. At it's best, the zombie genre offers hopelessness, disarray, and the revelation that humanity is generally the monster, not the undead knocking at the doors. At it's worst, zombie movies are boring, stupid, and derivative of the classics. With "Zombieland," we've got a hybrid on our hands. It defies many of the staples of the genre in favor of laughs, but it forgets to add the laughs in certain scenes. If you're a zombie fan, you owe it to yourself to check it out as it offers an interesting new take on the genre, but doesn't do anything to elevate itself from the crowd. If you don't like zombies, but do like black comedy, I'd say wait for it to hit DVD in a few months and rent it. It's worth seeing because Woody Harrelson is awesome, and there are some cool kill scenes, but don't think this is going to be one of the best zombie movies ever. It's not.