PARANORMAL ACTIVITY ~ "A Blair Witchy Retread."

Paranormal Activity might as well be a cardboard cut-out of the much better, much more influential, much more groundbreaking horror masterpiece The Blair Witch Project. Whereas that is in fact the most important statement about Paranormal Activity, I feel compelled to elaborate.

A modern-day couple decides to purchase a video camera in order to capture the night happenings of a ghost thought to possess their home. After evidence is apparent they briefly consult a flighty psychic and on his advise, they stay put in the house (supposingly the entity will follow them anyway). So like any curious couple they continue to stroke their own paranoia and provoke the entity with nightly video recordings.  Yep, that's about it.

The story is so bare bones that you wonder how it was possible to misstep the opportunity to delve deeper into Katie Featherston's past. The film briefly touches on the demon entity taunting her at a young age, starting a house fire, etc. The film explains nothing and holds no drama for its characters. Why not concentrate on the paranoia of demonology and the occult? Instead the film edges around religion. I'm sorry. I do realize we now live in a world where it's easier to ignore spirituality, but when you consider ghosts or demons of any kind in a story... you have also inadvertently created a God... therefore you almost automatically have to touch the theme of religion. Good and evil. There is a dividing line. If you bring up Ouija boards or the occult as a negative scare tactic, then the counter is religion or spirituality as a means of possible security. Focusing on this theme is exactly why Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist remain so very effective. Both films were fearless in touching the subject. 

Paranormal Activity is just bland and curiously not scary. Expecting suspense and a mammoth amount of ghost activity? Think again. There is a single unmemorable camera set-up by the bed and hardly anything happens. The rest of the time the couple runs around with the camera shouting the same things, investigating the same things, discussing the same things and bickering daily. There is no build. The film even has the gall to list each "night" as if that will fool us into being engrossed. Not on my watch. As a side note, Steven Spielberg apparently recommended a new ending in an attempt to tie everything together. Director Oren Peli listened and without the current ending, this film would have tanked on all levels. 

The Blair Witch Project was in a word iconic. It without a shadow of a doubt laid the path for this pathetic excuse for a bargain basement money-maker and it should be well noted as such. Perhaps the most daunting aspect of Paranormal Activity is that it originally attempted to make us believe this was actually caught on video. But with its unbelievability both in acting (Micah Sloat is particularly annoying) and story, other marketing gimmicks were targeted. Such as a slow build theatrical release, which caused Halloween audiences to flock to this low budget sleeper. In comparison however, The Blair Witch Project will surely stands the test of time. It is after-all a truly scary, real feeling thriller and should be revisited as a curious piece of film art if nothing else. 

Paranormal Activity is fool's gold. It doesn't psychologically play with the mind like really great horror films should, it falls on the same level as any ho-hum ghost show episode on cable. If you're hankering for a really great ghost story try out The Haunting (1963) or the remarkable film The Innocents (1961). Both are terrifying and put the likes of anything ghostly now days to a bitter shame, especially where Paranormal Activity is concerned. Seriously, don't waste your time and patience on this clunker. 

GRADE: D+

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE ~ "Rides The Rails of Family Friendly and Adult Satisfaction."

A curious piece of work is Where the Wild These Are. Adapted from the 1963 Maurice Sendak children's picture book of the same name, it was at one time banned from schools. Some were fearful that it was sending the wrong message. When in reality they failed to look beyond the surface and into the heart of the matter.

Max is a troubled child, but not a bad child. He is unsure how to cope with lonesomeness, being different, and those people he loves changing around him. So he acts out and lives inside his imagination as any truly creative child does. Creating worlds of wonder and playing the traditional "hands-on" way few children do anymore. The imagination stripping industrialized generation is sadly but certainly upon us. This movie does strike an unusal cord- Have we as a society sunk so carelessly into a realm far past books and playhouses, and into a life so digital that it is robbing the best of us? It touches on this theory very, very sneakily and all the better.

Keeping that same thought in mind- I applaud the lack of CGI work in this movie. I am well aware that it was used (how else could such lavish landscapes be captured?) but Where the Wild Things Are proves CGI can be used creatively and mildly to enhance the structural idea rather than the entirety. I find it disturbing when artistic achievements seem overwhelming and so what's the solution- computers! I can't see how the Academy Awards will misstep an Oscar nomination for Best Art Direction for Where the Wild Things Are. As it curiously concentrates on the familiar woodsy texture of the children's picture book.

Another splendid child actor is Max Records. He reminds me of Haley Joel Osment with a little less bite and a little more naturality. This is exactly what the film needed. If the character of Max were too intense it wouldn't enhance the message that he had created the "wild thing" character of Carol (James Gandolfini, admittedly an odd choice) as his alter-ego. Perhaps the scene stealer in this movie is the voice of the remarkable actress Catherine O'Hara as Judith. Not too shy herself is Catherine Keener who is so heart-touching in this movie that you will wonder why you don't see her in larger roles of this caliber. She plays Max's worried mother. The small details in their relationship are very touching. Such as Max playing with the toe of her panty hose as if noting it as something he will remember of her 20 years down the road.

I hold movies of this nature in high regard because it takes someone with a very nostalgic look on life to make this effective. Therefore, Spike Jonze has most certainly directed one of the best films of the year. Thankfully he does not sugar coat the sometimes harsh nature of the film instead rides the rails of family friendly and adult satisfaction- which in turn makes this beautiful movie a tearjerker for the whole family. 

GRADE: A-

THE STEPFATHER ~ "For Gods Sake! Why are you running up the stairs?"

Few people seem to remember the original 1987 thriller The Stepfather. Fortunately for all of us, I do. What seemed like an interesting choice for a remake was, to put it mildly, not. Here's a hint: if you are going to remake a movie that unfortunately few remember--at least make it as good as the original, because you're about to unveil the previous film anyway. In the 1987 version, Terry O'Quinn plays the family preying psychopath in hiding much more effectively campy than Dylan Walsh in the recent 2009 remake. However, that does not even remotely touch on what is wrong with the film in the first place... but it certainly doesn't help.

It is amazing how much wet and shirtless, underwear hanging just off the bridge of the torso, sexual teasing this film does with newcomer Penn Badgley. He plays older son Michael who's home from military school only to find that mommy (Sela Ward--apparently in sad desperation for acting work) is engaged to a strange new daddy. Now that the threadbare plot line is taken care of... back to sex. Why didn't the film use the built up sexual energy to its advantage? Make the stepfather a pervert for gods sake! We have no inkling of his background or why he feels the need to butcher up one family and move to the next. There is no plot suggesting he was molested by his father, no hapless mother trying to break Elizabeth Taylor's record of most marriages... no nothing! Thankfully Badgley is a glimmer of hope and keeps the film somewhat interesting. I can most certainly see longevity in his career and rightly so.  

All of the above can easily be choked down by an audience member looking to pass the time with a cardboard thriller (we've all been there). But what cannot be forgiven is the inept final fifteen minutes of the movie that abruptly unravels like a poorly constructed afghan. It is essential for a film of this nature to have a good payoff. What should have been suspenseful is not. As ALL the characters wind up climbing into an old-fashioned pull-down attic, we spend the rest of the sum-odd minutes realizing we just witnessed the ultimate of all reason's why we have screamed at the screen of horror movies for years--"For God's Sake! Why are you running up the stairs?!"

Shouldn't we have learned our lesson by now?

GRADE: D

ZOMBIELAND ~ "It's Tough Growing Up."

I'm always skeptical with zombie flicks. I mean let's get serious. Does it really get any better than Romero's vintage Night of the Living Dead (1968)? No. It really doesn't. That's not to say that some zombie flicks are not noteworthy IE: 28 Days Later. The action/horror spoof Zombieland surely falls safe enough into that league.

Zombieland starts off in modern-day quick but cool montage bang-explain mode with a list of rules on how to survive zombie attacks in a world occupied by only a few remaining humans. It's fun enough and laughs certainly follow, as Woody Harrelson struts his stuff in a tailor-made role. But as the movie goes on we slowly begin to realize that we are the victim of a "one joke" flick. 

This realization occurs exactly at the moment when Bill Murray enters the screen in a half-hearted cameo. Which breaks Action Movie Rule #1: Never Give The Audience Time To Think. What is no doubt a comedic cameo to some, is in a sense distracting and derails the momentum of the journey to other more serious observers. Why doesn't it work? Because we as audience members were not ready to let go of the foursomes journey cross-country for an overlong tongue-in-cheek joke. Believe me--I love Ghostbusters and Murray just as much as the next person. This "cameo" no doubt came about because of the success of Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder, which somehow managed to work, it does not here. 

The films strongest subplot is certainly that of the two ladies Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) who are sister survivoring con-artists. However, it owes more than a bit to the likes of Paper Moon and the great but little seen movie Heartbreakers. It is a shame that the men (Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg) couldn't have been saved by the bad ass women rather than the typical other way around. The film's final act ends at an amusement park in an attempt to be as symbolic as Romero's Dawn of the Dead mall. Not so much. After the elongated cameo, Zombieland somehow lost it's most curious and effective asset- the suspense. The directing was noticeably loose at the end, as the film did not know what to do with itself any longer. Zombieland certainly failed when it abandoned its "spoofyness" for the been-there-done-that drama. 

However, Harrelson as Tallahassee helped make up for any mistakes on a grand scale. And, while not a groundbreaker, on that same grand scale Zombieland succeeds in laughs and general audience fun. Which is more than you can ask for in a zombie genre that is slowly wearing out its welcome and begs the honest question... what more is there left to say?  

GRADE: B