Repo: The Genetic Opera

Story: A worldwide epidemic encourages a biotech company to launch an organ-financing program similar in nature to a standard car loan. The repossession clause is a killer, however.*taken from IMDB*

Review: Ever watch a film so different that the first viewing leaves a bitter taste in your mouth? Well that is about the sum of my feelings after my first viewing of Repo: The Genetic Opera. It was weird and I did not know what I was in for. I did not expect an actual opera. Dumb huh?

Repo is a gothic rock opera made by one of the directors of Saw II, III, and IV. After seeing Repo you can see where his true passion lies. Making unique cinematic experiences. He certainly did. Directors do not make movies like this anymore.

Now onto the actual review. While the synopsis is quite small the overall plot of the film follows far more that just a simple plot. The film Repo men, with Jude Law, took the plot and used it. Many claiming that it ripped off. I will not speak on that films behalf, I have not seen it even though I do own it. The plot is nothing ground breaking but it does have its moments that are really great. What most people what to know about this film is, "How is the music?" It is good, really good. It does have some off songs but most are really good.  The songs that did not work personaly for me where the songs are done in the classic opera singing style. They are not bad they are just to me the weakest songs. There are huge highlights in the music. Zydrate is a song that will be stuck in your head for days. Darren Lynn Bousmen and Terrence Zdunich really wrote some great songs here.



The performances are all pretty good. The true standouts here are Terrence Zdunich as the Graverobber and Anthony Head as The Repo Man. Terrence commands your attention when he is on the screen. The song Zydrate is his moment, he steals not only that scene but the entire movie. Anthony Head has some great moments and songs, from organ repossessions to his songs. The only performance that can be done without is Paris Hiltons, she has never been a good actress or singer. She does her best, and at times she can be a bit annoying. Her face falling off during a song makes up for every flat moment or line she has.



Recommend?: Yes, I do recommend this. Films like this need to be seen. While it will not be for everyone, many will actually hate this film. Watch it and if you do not like it watch it again. It is already a big cult hit, and it deserves it.

NEXT WEEK: THE DEVILS CARNIVAL

Live event and movie review. 

The Avengers (2012)

"Finding the characters' voices was easy; finding the structure was brutal!" - Joss Whedon

After four years of build-up, five block-busters, years of anticipation, hand-wringing, finger wagging and internet speculation we can finally see The Avengers. Like many other films of 2012, gone and yet to come, it certainly is ambitious. There were times when the movie looked like it would never get made, and a time where it almost looked like DC was going to push through a Justice League movie before it (though that project never materialized). There are many criticisms I can throw at this film but in the end, one way or the other, it delivers.

Earth is threatened by the fallen Asgardian prince Loki whose defeat in Thor has made him bitter but now has help from a strange, otherworldly benefactor. Colonel Nick Fury manages to escape the trickster god's wrath and is forced to re-open the 'Avengers initiative', a project hinted at in the previous Marvel films (Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger). For some reason the 'initiative' was scrapped, but the reasons why are not really dwelt upon. You get a sense that much story and character development was cut to keep the movie's pace fast (director Joss Whedon recently admitted as much) but these omissions does not damage the film, but I digress. The first two recruited is Steve 'Captain America' Rogers and Natasha (Black Widow) Romanov. Rogers is unhappy as he lost decades of his life and is stuck in a more complex, less simple time, but accepts the mission and slowly finds himself becoming the leader of the group. Though introduced in Iron Man 2 we get to see Black Widow in action and get first-hand experience of her unorthodox spy methods. Tony Stark and Pepper (the only romantic interest from any of the other movies to join this film) find Agent Colson interrupting their supposed romantic evening. Bruce Banner is living in the slums of India, trying to help people in need as a way of keeping the Hulk at bay, but is not recruited for being a hero or villain, but in more of a consultant role. Thor joins the cast late, and because of his links to Loki is treated as an enemy instead of an ally, leading to a fight between him and another Avenger. Regardless of their formidable power Loki is one step ahead of them.

The Woman

Plot: The Woman is about a typical American family who captures a feral woman that they find living on their property. The capture her with the intention of civilizing her and helping her. But as things progress further into dark territories it becomes apparent that the men of the family want something far more sinister.

Review: Before getting into the review itself, I feel like I should discuss the writer Jack Ketchum. He is a modern horror author much like Stephen King and like Mr. King he has had several of his books turned into full feature films. His films tend to be darker and more disturbing than Kings.  Ketchum is not stranger to controversy, between this film and his 2009 film The Girl Next Door he has become a writer that usually will find his was to a top ten list of most disturbing films somewhere.

Now onto today's film. The Woman is a blood soaked flick that doesn't sacrifice on its character development, like most modern horror films. It gets you invested in one or more of its leads and then makes you want to watch others suffer. The Jack Ketchum films I have seen, do three things very well. Disturb you to your core, cause you to hate  people, and keep the film at a R-rating without resorting to a Unrated cut to have a shocking film.The Woman does all three of these things. But does that make it a good movie or just a film that shocks over story?

The story, while simple does its job of throwing enough twists at you to keep your eyes on the screen, even through the cracks of your hands. The shocking parts of this film aren't from the gore they are from the normality of the main antagonists and how they act when they are not being terrible. The male lead acts completely normal away from home, and then becomes an absolute monster at home. You genuinely feel like he is trying to do the right thing. While this does seem new to horror films, the acting makes it feel very real. 

The film is not without its flaws, the major flaw is its ending. Its a ending that does not fit the realism that the film was going for. The revenge segment of the film is easily the weakest, turning a disturbingly realistic drama into a gore filled cannibal film. It is not enough to ruin the film, it just seems out of place.

Recommend?: Yes, it is great horror film that does exactly what a horror film should do. Shock and disturb you. It is not for the faint of heart but I do recommend it easily.

Cabin in the Woods

Ingredients: One part Evil Dead, one part Tucker and Dale Vs Evil, and one part Truman show.

Plot: Five teenagers go to a cabin in the woods, and they proceed to do the typical teenage thing. Party, smoke weed, and have sex. As their first night of partying proceeds, the cellar door slams open When the enter the cellar they find a room full of crazy objects. From a book of a deranged family with latin words written in  it, to a puzzle orb. Upon  reading of the book, they release unspeakable horrors. This is the premiss, and I can't and won't speak anymore about it. To talk more about it would be to ruin it.

Review:, So this is the new film from Drew Goddard (of Cloverfield fan) and Joss Whedon (Firefly, Buffy, and Dr Horribles Sing along blog). It is also Joss Whedons first time producing and co-writing a horror film. So how does this go for him? Joss Whedon passes with flying colors. He has made a truly original, funny, and suspenseful film. What works so well with it? 

The good, ninety eight percent of this film works amazingly well. The humor at times is very understated, throwing slight nobs at classic horror films and at other times is very obvious using great jokes better than most mainstream comedies. This film doesn't take itself series and that's one of its stronger. The characters are likable, while they are the stereotypical characters from most horror films they work very well as there own characters while still falling into the tropes and filling their own comical roles. Okay so how about the horror? As most people would think, that would be the most important part of a horror movie. Well, it does work really well and keeps up the suspense at all the right moments. Unlike a lot of slasher films, zombie films, ghost stories, and most other horror films, it doesn't use nonstop jump scares. It uses some but not enough too really cause irritation. It also uses enough gore to keep the gorehounds happy, it uses more gore in the final 45 minutes than most horror films in the last year.

The bad is that final few moments are a bit off. There is a decision made with in the last act of the movie that really don't fit the characters personalities. Outside of that minor issue, there are some plot holes that arise due to the concept. They do affect the overall immersion. While neither issues are major in the overall scope of the film, they are there.

Recommended?: Yes, yes, and yes again. It does so much right that when a few minor issues show up they aren't enough to take away from the good. Check this one out, it is one of the best horror films from the last couple years.

Scar 3D

Ingredients: 1 part torture porn, 1 part thriller, 1/2 part bad production quality, and 1/2 part "3d"

Plot:In the small town of Ovid Colorado, Joan Burrows (Angela Bettis) awakens in the basement morgue of Ernie Bishop, a local undertaker who secretly tortures, mutilates and kills teenage girls. Before becoming Bishops latest victim, Joan manages to kill him and escape with her life. Sixteen years later and still bearing the scars of her torment, Joan returns to her hometown in time to see her niece, Olympia, be crowned Prom Queen. Soon after Joans arrival, murders by an alleged copycat killer begin targeting Olympia  and her girlfriends. *

* Summary taken from Dvd  *

Review: Scar 3D tries hard to ambitious. It is a horror film shot in 3D instead of a bad transition like most movies now. But does that mean ambitions are the saving grace of this film keeping it out of forgotten corners of the mind?

I'll start with the good aspects of this film. Well it is bloody and for a horror film in the torture porn that's sorta a must. It also has a little bit of originality hiding in its bones. Mainly the killer, plays a game (I know, I know bear with me),, and he will torture one person at a time and wait for them to say to kill the other person (usually the best friend). While the "game", aspect is nothing new, the "game" they play is very intense at times.

Now for the bad, its plot is nothing special, it is horribly silly at times (the prom queen scene is the girl wearing a giant fish costume), and the "red herrings" are pretty obvious. Also, the production quality is a major issue in this film. I watched this off a Blu-ray player that upscales and this movie look terrible. Not only was it just low production quality, the 3D shooting makes it look pretty bad, and its all kinda wasted because there was only one scene that used any sort of 3D. While these aspects of the film are usually enough to ward people off a film like this, there was one major aspect that hurt it the most. Its utterly forgettable, nothing sticks with you after the credits.

Recommend: No, this is a film that I honestly wanted to like. Was it bad? No, you can just see a lot better of a movie in this genre. I think the Torture porn genre is a genre that can easily explore the darker side of the world and of human nature. This does neither. Take a pass, and go watch something better.

The Hunger Games

Ingredients: One part satire with one part survival thriller with a pinch of a love story

Plot: In a dystopian future, the totalitarian nation of Panem is divided between 12 districts and the Capital. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by a random lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal retribution for a past rebellion, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors while the citizens of Panem are required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss's young sister, Prim, is selected as District 12's female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, are pitted against bigger, stronger representatives who have trained for this their whole lives.

*Based of the book series of the same name written by Suzanne Collins.
**Plot summary from IMDB.com

Review: Whats this a big budget hollywood blockbuster reviewed by me!? Yeah it does happen every once in  a while. So onto the review of this survivalist tale of teenagers killing each other.

Going into this movie, I had not read the book and honestly I still have not. I have done my research about my differences and I am starting into reading the book series. That being said I had heard the plot synopsis long ago, before it was even put into production, and thought of it as a Battle Royale knock off. Well I didn't get that completely right. It does have a very similar theme. You know teenagers killing each other. But I can't make any more comparisons due to the fact I have not seen Battle Royale for years,  the Dvd is sitting on my shelf in a backlog of other films for reviewing. Okay now to the main part of this review.

You're reading this review and after the paragraph your probably thinking one thing. How was it? Well to my surprise it worked. Young adult films haven't been done kindly in recent cinema years. Prissy vampires and emotionless sociopathic lead actresses have been the big hits. This has none of that. It has a strong female lead who honestly is able to carry this film on her shoulders. Jennifer Lawrence has shown some strong acting chops. She was fantastic as Mystique and continues being fantastic as Katniss. The rest of the actors and actress turn in some strong performances, from Woody Harrelson to Elizebeth Banks. Elizebeth Banks is clearly having the time of her life as Effie. Honestly I didn't know it was even her until I watched Brad Jones*  vlog. I do have to discuss the look of this film, the capital residents are a bit odd looking.  Given no reason in the film they look like Tim Burton characters. It is an odd design choice, but given the fact that in this dystopian future is not exactly normal it kind of fits. When you see the city in a few shots it looks suitably futuristic, and the run down districts look like Robin Hood villages. There are a few things that do not work, and that biggest one is the camera work in the action scenes. The issue being they use the bourne series shaky camera work, making the film horrible disorienting during the bigger action scenes. While the action scenes, when you can see them, are intense for a Pg-13 young adult film. The shaking can get too much and during the main action scenes, it becomes incredibly obvious that they where shot, or changed post production due to the Pg-13 rating. The shaky cam is incredibly jarring, if you see it in Imax it can be nauseating. The next issue comes the changes stem from the book to movie transition. Having not read the books I didn't know just what changes where made or how drastic they where. Not sensing the fact that they changed things is a credit to this film, but I wish they didn't change them. Spoilers incoming, the first change is that  of Rue's death the film has her die when Katniss turns the corner and finds Rue in a net, she proceeds to free her and then another "contestant" rounds the corner and throws a spear at Katniss missing and hitting Rue thus killing her. The book has it mostly the same, but instead of Rue being freed and then being accidentally hit, she is killed while still being trapped in the net. She is stabbed as soon as Katniss rounds the corner very cold bloodily. I assume that this change was made because of  the rating. The other changes are the dogs, in the book they have the eyes of the other "contestants" if done right it could have been absolutely chilling and really effective. The third change is Peeta the male lead is injured and loses his leg. This is remedied via a magic drug. Between Rues death and the leg amputation, some emotional impact and tension gets lost. The leg thing could have been incorporated, since How to Train Your Dragon has the main character lose a leg, and that was a pg rated kids film. I wanna see a uncut version on Dvd/bluray removing the shaky cam or at least deleted scenes showing the left out scenes or at least rough cg design of the dog faces via special features.

Recommend? Yes, I do recommend this. It really was a great film. It worked well enough as a standalone film for those like myself who have not read the book. I recommend reading the book before or after seeing the movie, or at least do research about those left out scenes. Check this movie out, be warned of the shaking camera though.

Immortals

Greek mythology is a tricky genre for film to get right. Very few films have done it justice. Greek Mythology needs to be epic and powerful. Does Immortals do it right?

Plot: Before the dawn of man or beast, immortals waged war against each other. The victors named themselves gods while the vanquished were named the Titans and imprisoned beneath Mount Tartarus. The Epirus Bow, a weapon of immense power, is lost on Earth during the war. In 1228 B.C., the mortal Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) searches for the Bow, intending to use it to release the Titans to spite the gods for failing to save his family. Hyperion captures the virgin oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto), believing that she can find the Bow's resting place.

In a small village nearby, the inhabitants prepare to flee to Tartarus to avoid Hyperion's army. One inhabitant, Theseus (Henry Cavill), is a skilled warrior trained by his mentor, the old man (John Hurt). Theseus and his mother Aethra (Anne Day-Jones), considered undesirables because Theseus was born from Aethra being raped, are forced to stay behind by villagers and Athenian soldiers including Lysander (Joseph Morgan). Theseus ably battles multiple opponents until the Athenian officer Helios (Peter Stebbings) intervenes and discharges Lysander for his actions. Lysander travels to Hyperion, offering his service and the village's location. Hyperion accepts, but maims and castrates Lysander for being a traitor. Hyperion's forces attack Theseus' village, murdering the villagers, Aethra and taking Theseus captive *
Theseus escapes and goes out to find the legendary bow.

Review: Where to start on this mess of a film? I find this to be a very hard film to review. It does way to many things badly but still keeps you entertained through a lot of it. Lets delve into this review to dissect it.

The Bad: When this movie came out in theaters I went on several tangents of saying how bad the movie looked. The marketing was awful, and did not make you want to see this film. The recent John Carter reminds me a lot of the marketing of this film.

The plot is another major issue with the film, its not a very compelling or memorable. There is a certain character who looses all relevance at the halfway point. This is a pretty big fault because, they are a major character. It is a film of the 300 generation. It is truly style over substance. 300 had a much more epic and memorable plot. This brings me to issue two, the style while some works (i'll get to that later) it also tries too hard and can be too eccentric. The costuming looks just silly at times. Mainly Micky rourkes  helmet, it looks like Jack the Bunny from Donnie Darko. The golden face piece looks pretty cool, but the helmet doesn't work and doesn't make you fear him.

The Good:  As I just went over the style while it doesn't work at times, it works WAY more than it doesn't. At several times, I saw scenes and just mouthed "wow" There is no doubt that Tarsem is a fantastic visual director. As many saw during his film The Cell. What works well for its credit is the action scenes are done really well. The finally fight scenes between Theseus and Hyperion and The Gods and the titans are fantastic fights. They are well shot scenes and the latter scene is stylistically fantastic. Its very evident that Tarsem wanted to use these scenes as a highlight of this film. It deserves to be mentioned that Micky Rourke is really frighting and intimating as hyperion when he is not where that stupid helmet.

Recommended: Yes, as long as you aren't expecting something deep or profound. Stylistically fantastic, really shallow plotwise. Check it out.

Ordet (1955)

I am a mason. I build houses, but nobody lives in them. People prefer to build their own, even though they do not know how. Some of them inhabit half-finished huts, others live in ruins, and most wander homeless.

These are the words of Johannes Borgen, a young man who has come to believe he is Jesus Christ after a mental breakdown. He is speaking to the new pastor who has come to call at Borgengaard, a prosperous farm across the road of his church. When the pastor tells the mad young man that miracles no longer happen Johannes looks sad and says "Thus speaks my church on earth, the church that has failed me, that has murdered me in my own name..." Not long after the pastor meets Mikkel Borgen, the elder brother. When the pastor asks if it was love that caused his mind to cave him the brother replies bluntly, "No, it was Kierkegaard."

By now you would have realized that you are not watching a normal movie, a movie that is quite like no other despite being an every-day slice of life. It is a complex, difficult movie that, to some, will be a great, hypnotic piece of cinema about faith vs dogma, as well as resurrection and renewal of a truer, deeper faith. To others it will be an overlong farm movie where Danish Lutherans sit around, talk and drink coffee. Lots of coffee.

I was not trying to be flippant with the last paragraph, but rather I was just gauging the reaction some might have to this film. It slow pace will be difficult to people who like to have Something Happen every five minutes, whether it's an explosion or, like some art movies, an act that would shock the bourgeois attitudes of people who wont watch it anyway. But this is a purer film than most movies that get selected at prestigious international film festivals these days. This is a film where people take their faith seriously, and the director, Carl Theodor Dreyer, pays them the compliment of doing the same.

The best thing about Ordet is that is, without a doubt, a living, breathing piece of cinema. It's slow pace give the characters time enough to move and talk as if it was the start of a normal day that would soon have extraordinary conclusion. Most of it is set on Borgengaard, the farm of a stern widower Morten Borgen, who is deeply unhappy about the way things have turned out. Despite being successful his sons are making him unhappy. Johannes, the middle child, was the smartest one but whose current state saddens him deeply. Mikkel, the eldest, stands to inherit the farm but has lost his faith in God. "He has betrayed the faith of his forefathers," mourns Morten. To rub salt in his wounds he is told by Inge, Mikkel's pregnant wife, that Anders, the youngest, is in love with Anna Petersen, the daughter of Peter Petersen, his old theological enemy.

Morten and Peter seem to have been against each other for a long time. Morten is implied to be part of Lutheran church, which he helped re-establish in the community, while Peter has founded his own Christian denomination, and preaches from his lounge above his shop. Neither consider the other to be Christians. Morten is rich and very, very proud of who he is, but to a degree so is Peter who is more subtle in his sins. It is also implied that part of their contempt for each other lies in the fact the Borgens are landowners, who were generally seen as being better than shopkeepers in some societies (and in this instance its Peter who resents Borgen for having land).

Morten Borgen is without a doubt the central character while the other is, most certainly, Inge Borgen. Inge is very outspoken in her faith in God and her atheist husband, though never do you get the feeling that she's simply being pious. There's something sly in Birgitte Federspiel's performance; her unshakeable faith makes her wise and perceptive, and I can't help but feel that she regards some of the people she lives with as slightly ridiculous. She certainly believe in God and still believes He can work miracles where everyone else (save the mad Johannes) have lost faith. She's also blunt at times; when Morten suggests Anders should find someone of 'their own faith' she points out that his wedding was nothing more than a "transaction between farmers'. Morten is visibly shaken by her words, but does not deny it.

The third most important character is mad Johannes, whom we first meet upon the grassy dunes outside the farm, preaching to the world who can't hear him. Compared to his cast mates his performance is edges closer towards being 'over-the-top', but he cuts an eerie and unsettling screen presence even in scenes where his madness is played for uncomfortable laughs (or maybe they were unintentional). Despite any humour that may be there the character deeply affects the others whenever he enters the screen, yet Inge observes that maybe he's closer to God than any other of them. His father, however, prays only that his son may be released from his madness, even if that release is death.

This is only about the first 40 minutes of the plot so far, but it is where I'll stop with my summary. As Roger Ebert noted it is impossible to discuss this movie without summarizing the characters and story; because the performances and direction are both subdued (and free of melodrama and sugary sentiment) the movie just pulls back let the viewer watch the fully formed characters live and breath in a world that is more real than others. This is quite a feat seeing that the movie is based on a play; movies based on plays tend to show their seems.

The end of the movie is considered to be among the most powerful, haunting endings ever filmed. It certainly is haunting in my opinion and I doubt I may ever forget it. In any other story the ending would be considered a cheap trick by the plot, the author or the director. Yet somehow agnostic Carl Theodor Dreyer's artistry makes the ending feel completely real, and like his earlier masterpiece, The Passion of Joan of Arc, he gives us a window into the paradoxes, sadness and beauty of the will of God.

The Woman in Black (2012)

The Woman in Black (2012).
Flavor: Ghost/Thriller.
Ingredients: Old creepy mansion, disturbing dolls, jump scares, angry ghost.

Plot: Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is a young lawyer who is depressed by the loss of his beautiful wife after giving birth to a son. His son, now grown to a toddler, draws pictures of him with a sad face. He is assigned to prepare a large house for sale in a marsh and travels to an obscure village where he is shunned by most of the townspeople. He visits the Eel Marsh House, the estate of the late Alice Drabow, to look it over, but finds his job has grown more perilous as it is haunted by the ghost of a woman scorned. He learns from the villagers that the ghost of the woman in black seeks revenge against their children because her child was taken away from her. Kipps is befriended by Sam (Ciaran Hinds) and his wife Elizabeth (Janet McTeer). They, too, have lost a son, and they help the lawyer to investigate the background of the estate and what happened. -IMDb


Review: I hate this movie. Not because it's bad, but because its good, very good at what it does: it scares me. Now i will watch your run of the mill slasher film (yawn) or the gory zombies, without batting an eyelash. But make me watch a suspenseful movie where you just know the jump is coming, and I'm the one hiding behind the pillow with one eye open. And that is exactly what The Woman in Black does well.

The plot isn't exactly original, (ghost in an old mansion, superstitious unwelcoming villagers..etc. etc.)
But it is well made, and there are enough little touches of originality to keep it fresh. The mansion is just what you'd expect a haunted mansion to be. And i quite liked the part they had the tide play in this. Creepy house with surrounding graveyard not enough? Hey lets make it totally cut off from the world when the tide is in! The shots of the marshes were really convincing as well in showing how remote and desolate the area was.

The suspense was well played out, if a little typical of this sort of movie. Personally i can't stand this sort of thing. I mean you know there's something down that dark hallway that's gonna jump out at you. You just don't know when...and BAM! that's the brilliance of suspense, and why i have no fingernails left.

Daniel Radcliffe's acting was truly great, as well as the supporting cast. Overall this is a really well made film. And I liked the old fashioned vintage feel of the movie too.
The only things i can say against it is the plot isn't mindbogglingly original, the woman screeching gets a little old, and the scares are good but not totally unexpected.

Recommended: Yes. Especially if you like suspenseful ghost movies. Have to give props to a horror movie that depended on convincing acting, story and atmosphere instead of naked screaming girls and gore.

The Woman in Black is owned by Hammer Films

Attack The Block

Alien invasion films are nothing new. They have been around since the black and white days of Cinema with films classics such as War of the Worlds (1953) and The Day the Earth stood still (1951). So how does a new film from this genre set its' self apart?

Plot: A gang of teens try to defend their neighborhood block ( hey a title!)  from  alien invasion. The teens are a rather unsavory group who rob, steal and attack others. In the middle of a robbery  a strange object crashes through a car and begins to attack them. They respond by chasing it down cornering and killing it. This starts an invasion of a alien race that threatens them and their way of life.

Review: Okay so from that description you would probably say the heroes of this film sound utterly repulsive. They are not a nice group to root for at the beginning. Then why are they the heroes of this film? Why should we root for, or care for these characters? That's why the writer/director (Joe Cornish) you has done something really great. He makes you care for these really unlikeable characters. You start rooting for these characters,even though at the beginning you couldn't stand them.

This movie shifts from horror to humor near perfectly. There are some really comedic moments that aren't forced. They feel really natural and help lighten the mood of a film that is very dark  with some dire circumstances. The horror within this film is legitimately quite frightening and suspenseful.

Another huge plus for this film is the creature design. The design is easily one of the most memorable and frightening designs in years. Its truly a unique and frightening design. If you haven't seen the look of these aliens check them out- their blue glowing teeth look really awesome.

Is there anything I can say bad about this film? Not a lot honestly, it does have the dislike of the characters near the beginning. And are a few characters that turn out still being a little bit too grating personality wise. The main culprit of the flaw of the film is the antagonist (outside the alien)  He is truly very annoying. He doesn't kill the film because he has a total of 3 scenes and the way they deal with him is really great. The only flaw we see outside of him is the pacing can be a bit off.


RECOMMENDED? Yes
I do recommend this film, it most likely won't be a film for everyone. Mainly because of the main characters, some people won't be able to shake that original impression of them.

The Red Shoes (1948)

Time rushes by, love rushes by, life rushes by, but the Red Shoes go on.

In the world of cinema we have lost, to a degree, a sense of wonder at the artistry old fashioned special effects. Thanks to CGI (a wonderful tool, if used right) directors and producers strive for realism in their visuals even if the realism is a giant clunking robot fighting another. 'Real' is relative, though, in the end, but there is an insistence that the visuals must look believable. Computers can also create short-cuts to many effects that used to be a such a chore to do in the old days that it is hard to imagine directors going through the rigmarole of in-camera effects, optics or matte painting ever again*. Yet these things, though primitive, helped create a certain, incredible feel to some movies, particularly as Technicolor came around. Not all of Hollywood embraced colour immediately, but many saw potential and strove to create more than just ordinary films. Some strove to create living paintings. There were several attempts like John Huston's Moulin Rouge from 1952, which notably attempted to mimic the colours and style of Toulouse-Latrec paintings. But few Technicolor movies look as visually astounding as The Red Shoes, which is a painting come to life.

This is a generous film that opens up like a novel; it begins simply and builds slowly into something unique and sumptuous. Young Vicky Page (the luminous Moira Sheerer) wants to do ballet - it is all she lives for. She joins the Lermontov Ballet, a prestigious production company run by the enigmatic Boris Lermontov (Anton Walbrook, a criminally underrated actor). Lermontov is an autocrat who considers ballet his religion and wants it practised only with utter dedication. "A dancer who relies upon the doubtful comforts of human love can never be a great dancer. Never." Having a good nose for talent he hires a young music student, Julian Craster (Marius Goring), to work as an assistant to the conductor. Seeing talen he asks him to eventually compose for the company. After small successes the three of them (and the other members of the company) begin to work on The Red Shoes, a ballet based on a macabre Hans Christian Anderson tale. The ballet within the movie tell the story of a girl who wishes to dance more than anything and puts on a magical pair of red shoes. She begins to dance and finds she is unable to stop. She dances as if in joy, but the dance is just a parody of happiness. Her life fades away and she eventually dances herself to death. During the production the composer and star fall in love, and the master does not approve. All of this sounds like a simple backstage melodrama, but it is not that simple. Nothing is simple or straight forward in this film. This is a film that can guard its heart and challenge the viewer to make of it what they will.

Part of what makes it a great film is that it paints a fascinating portrait of life in a ballet company; we see people not always fond of each other striving to collaborate something exceptional. It does not go into the detail of the routine of a ballet company like other films (or the physical and mental exertion that is vital to The Black Swan) but it has an element of authenticity to the scenes.We get to know the production designer, the conductor and some of the other dancers who come across as real people. It helps that the supporting cast were some of the greatest ballet stars of the 40s and 50s, including Ludmilla Tchérina, Robert Helpermann and Léonide Massine who bring believability to their roles. But the star of the film is Moira Shearer, who director Michael Powell considered the only "natural" he's ever met.

The best performance, however, goes to Anton Walbrook as Lermontov, a German actor who fled the Nazis in the 30s and who settled in Britain. Whenever he appears on-screen he captivates it with his underplayed yet commanding performance. Most of the time he seems kind and fatherly but clings to his belief of eliminating distractions. Marius Goring, as Craster, plays the role well of a seemingly simple romantic lead, but even towards the end he is shown to have layers. In certain ways he and Lermontov are the same, even if the younger's motive is more transparent. This build to a unsettling climax that should bewilder many (but going into more detail would spoil too much - other reviews may do so).

It is strange to think that Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger have both been somewhat short-changed by film history. Make no mistake they have supporters, the biggest of which is Martin Scorcese who personally oversaw the restoration of this film. Compared to their contemporaries (Alfred Hitchcock, Carol Reed, John Huston, William Whyler, Billie Wilder, Akira Kurosawa, John Ford) they seem neglected. Yet few of the big-time Hollywood directors played or experimented with stylistic innovation as much as Powell and Pressburger (except maybe Hitchcock).

Take, for instance, the 17 minute ballet sequence that is the heart of the movie (not the climax). It starts out on a simple stage where everything is as it should be, but the longer it goes on the more expressionistic it becomes. We end up seeing not the ballet as it is produced on the stage, but as Vicky experience it in front of a large audience, caught up in the spell of the performance. She dances on an empty stage that transforms into an eerie painted ballroom without cutting to another camera. At other stages she dances with a piece of newspaper blowing in the wind that transforms into a dancer. These tricks were done in camera and were developed during the silent era, but have been forgotten in the late 40's. The cinematography of Jack Cardiff is commendable. He not only managed difficult shots but made them beautiful. Technicolor did not strictly speaking render colours 100% correct, but made it appear richer, and Cardiff exploits that exceptionally well. After the general release of the film the Technicolor Company considered The Red Shoes the best use of its product.

Having any sort of love or knowledge of ballet is not necessary to enjoy this film, though it certainly helps. Although I personally admire ballet I am not a fan and had some misgivings. Watching this film for the first time on Blu-Ray (the restored British release, which is almost identical to the US Criterion Release) I was converted to an admirer and understand why so many people embrace have embraced it. Many good films have acting, dialogue, but in the end The Red Shoes has, more than anything, imagination. Imagination is what fuelled Powell and Pressburger's unlikely mindscrew romance A Matter of Life and Death (known in the US as Stairway to Heaven), which is one of my favourite movies as well. But there is was the layered story that hinted at the darker aspect of the British Empire. Here it is the haunting images of Vicky Page putting on the Red Shoes wishing only to dance.

* The pictures (in order) from Fritz Lang's Metropolis, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Raiders of the Lost Ark. The first one was done by filming on a real with some parts of the lens covered, then running it backwards, then covering up the one part and uncovering another and filming a different angle of the same scene. The second one was done in a very similar way, but mostly uses slit-scan technology with the diamond-like reflections created with mirrors. The last one is self-explanatory.

Chronicle

Super powered teenagers are not a new thing in cinema. They are just as frequent as annoying teenagers in a slasher films. So what does it take to break the mold and make something original from a cliched idea?

Plot : High school senior Andrew, is an outcast. He purchases a camera and lives behind it as an extension of himself. While filming everything he goes to a rave with his cousin and in the woods Andrew, his cousin, and his cousins best friend find a mysterious hole in the ground that contains a glowing rock. They are gifted with new telekinetic abilities and from there grow as friends and enemies.



Review : 2012 is here and with it comes more Found footage films, some bad and some good. How does this film stack up to the other 8000 found footage films? Well lets dive into this review and find out

So as I sat down in the theater to watch Paranormal Activity 3, I was greeted with a trailer for a new film Chronicle. It looked like a decent film. One that would show what happens when teenagers get powers and miss use them, and turning into a Superhero film where one became the villain. Predictable and amusing but forgettable. Boy was I wrong on this one. While the film's first half does follow my ideas about the teenagers misusing there powers for selfish needs, the second half does some different stuff.

Andrew is a senior in high school and isn't very well liked by anyone. He is picked on by everyone and has become an outcast. Even at home he is abused by his father while his mother is in critical condition by an unnamed disease. The movie starts with the fact that he has recently purchased a video camera to capture the daily activities of his life, thus starting the Found footage gimmick. He takes this camera everywhere and it becomes an extension of himself never parting with it, setting up that unsaid idea of false protection behind the lens. From here we are introduced to Andrews cousin who befriends him, taking him to a rave. After a misunderstanding Andrew leaves the party and meets Steve, his cousin Matt s best friend. From this point the film allows you to bond with these three characters, and watch them bond as friend while they experiment with the powers they found in a dark hole during the party. They slowly learn that they can control certain objects with their minds and proceed to mess with people in stores and in public. What starts as innocent fun, never hurting anyone  slowly morphs into something far darker and sinister. Andrew uses his powers to force a vehicle off the road and nearly kills the driver. From there we see more of Andrew life showing him as an outcast from everyone but his friends and truly showing a teenage on the verge of a mental breakdown, which for someone with Andrews' special talents could be very bad. Without spoiling anything we all know well anyone who has seen the trailer know Andrew does snap leading to a very intense and tragic climax.

Lets call this film a very big surprise for me. I expected a fun ride but nothing special, what I got was that fun ride with a tragic story with some great unknown actors giving some fantastic performances. I thought the found footage genre was dried up of all the original ideas it had, I was wrong instead of a gimmick for the film it adds to the ideas of the film. Unlike most found footage films you can't watch it and say "why would they film this?" everything filmed fits and feels natural. They do some creative things near the end with different camera shots and switching perspectives.

With everything said it has a couple minor flaws. Its a very short film, running a mere 85 mins and at times it feels pretty edited. Nothing offensively edited but I can promise we will see a directors cut upon DVD release. The other flaw relies on the climax, it changes the tone of a mostly character driven film into a action film. Again its not a huge complaint.

Overall: I recommend it highly, it does flaws but not enough to drag down a fantastic film for the beginning of 2012. I await the aforementioned directors cut with glee

Recommend? YES 

Chronicle is owned  20th Century Fox.

Chronicle is rated Pg-13 for intense action and violence, thematic material, some language, sexual content and teen drinking 

Top 10 most disappointing

So this is my top 10 or well bottom 10 disappointments for this year. Lets start off. Not all of these films are considered bad, just disappointing in my eyes.


Number 10
Thor
Well all considering this is a Good movie but it still was a pretty big disappointment.Why, you ask? because it was your standard cut and paste superhero film. As I said there is nothing out rightly bad about it, it just came across mediocre. Loki was great, Thor was great, Natalie Portman was well...Natalie Portman. I Have seen her character before many times. Her sister(?) was what really drove this movie down, she was just plan annoying. Your standard comic relief character. I still do recommend to check it out because it is a fun ride but just don't expect a lot out of it.

Number 9
Green Lantern
After a fantastic second trailer my hopes where high. I will admit to being a Ryan Reynolds fan so that helped me get excited. But then I saw the final product, wow was I let down. This movie like Thor falls into the cut and paste formula but unlike thor it seemed like the editors tore apart this film./It felt like half and hour was missing. Even the extended cut was way to short. I demand more OA and corps interaction if we ever see a seqeal. All around kind of a meh film with a terrible antagonist design.

Number 8
Preist
This ranks so high because I wanted it to be a decent film. It wasn't while not as bad as many films I have seen it was a train wreck of editing. The censors took a clever and took away all of the potential this film had. It seemed nutered. Karl Urban gave a fun performance that really desearved a better movie. Honestly this movie has been torn apart by a lot of people in better ways than me so I won't say anymore.

Number 7
Season of the Witch
What a movie, I honestly went into this film with low expectations but expected a laugh from it. It was being considered this years Devil with such bad writing that you have to laugh. But it was slow, boring and all around a lame film this is easily one of 2011 worst movies. .

 Number 6:
Bereavement
While yes I did give this film a decent review I still was disappointed by it. The box cover promised "Shocking and disturbing" and what I got was " cliche and generic" If I where to review this movie now it would get a much lower score. It was well shot and had a few decent scenes but nothing new was brought into the genre. Not a horrible film just not very good.

Number 5:
Laid to rest 2: Chrome Skull
While the first film was enjoyable for its over- the- top kills and decent characters this one really didn't work. Its characters where awful and annoying. While I admit I like films with bad characters this one couldn't be redeemed. Just meh, I had a lot of hope for this one too.

Number 4:
Hatchet 2
Another Slasher film I had hopes for, well that shows me. While the first film managed comedy and horror very well, this one only did comedy. Way to many joke characters, a weak protagonist nothing worked well but the gore. I prefer Gore films with substance (outside of Dead Alive) this had none. Skip this film unless you are a hardcore fan of the first film.

Number 3:
Suckerpunch
Speaking of lack of substance this is the queen of "pretty but with no brains". The barebones story with bad characters (sorry but I like character names that are more than "Baby doll" or "Sweet Pea") that link the animeesc action scenes do nothing for this film. Zach Snyder can make pretty movies, but someone else should write them./I didn't hate this movie, I just wanted A LOT more.

Number 2:
Scream 4 or Scre4m
I could rant on about this miserable film in fact I did review it but I HATED this movie. Nothing good came from it. I will keep it short and simple, A movie from a director that has remade 3 of his films (The hills have eyes, Last house on the Left, and Nightmare of Elms street) made a movie that makes fun of remakes...lolwut? Skip this film, watch those remakes instead

Number 1:
Paranormal Activity 3
BOO! BLARG! ... yeah thats what its like watching this crapfest, jumpscare after jumpscare. What was once a series that rebeled against the Grudges of this word, that had dozens of jumps in them, became one of those films. I left the theater going "Holy crap that was intense" and a day later was pissed off at what this movie. A spit in the face of all the huge fans of the first  two. It also graced us with the trailer of the recent crapstorm that is The Devil Inside. A miserable film, what I would consider the worst if it wasn't for Little Red Riding Hood. Stay away from this movie and its new seqeal next halloween and maybe they will stop.

*Due to Computer issues I could not get posters for all the films. I will fix this later on, sorry for it being jarring*

My top ten best movies of the year.

So I figured I would do my top 10 films of the year. While I did see a lot of movies this not a lot where from 2011. So that being said there will be exclusions like Hugo, the girl with a dragon tattoo and several more films. My bottom of the list will be my top 5 disappointments I am not saying these are terrible movies just disappointments.

Number 10
Horrible bosses.
Let me say now this is Colin Farrells best film in a few years. You can tell he had fun which really makes it fun watching. It had so many great jokes, some great comedic performances and a lot of quotes. This years hangover great comedy.

Number 9
Tucker and Dale versus evil
This one took me awhile to see it but when I did I got so many laughs from it. A ton of great homages to different horror classics, and genres. A horror comedy that does everything right from the fantastic chemistry of the leads to not forgetting what came before it. A lot of fun
and the second best comedy of the year

Number 8
Drive angry
As a big fan of Nick Cage and the grind house films, this film was exactly what I wanted. A lot of people hated this movie, they must have not walked into this expecting a grind house film. Excessive, violent and cheesy, also some of the best 3d used in a movie this year. Great gimmicky stuff. A movie to watch with your brain shut off.

Number 7
Final destination 5
Easily after final destination 3 and 4 I did not expect anything good. But the only reason it got this high instead of 10 was it's this years biggest surprise. Instead of the roller coaster of death it really builds some great suspense. A welcome surprise to the series now hopefully it stops.

Number 6
Insidious
What comes across as another paranormal activity ripoff actually turns out as a really great 80's haunting film. It really is not a film for everyone. A lot of weird quirks make this a original film. If it was all weird it would not be on this list what really helps it is that it's actually a creepy film. It's a successfully creepy and original film

Number 5
Troll hunter
What started as a movie I was really excited to see because of how cheesy and over-the-top the trailer was became a thrilling and fun experience. It channels Jurassic park in it's attitude and atmosphere. Really a joy to watch as long as you don't take it to seriously

Number 4
X-men first class
Part spy film part masterfully told origin story part awesome comic film x-men first class is fantastic. Choices 4-1 where already made for me. X-men first class was everything I wanted in the movie. Easily best comic since the dark knight.

Number 3
Harry potter and the deathly hallows part 2
Magical, epic, and action pact. A hugely entertaining summer film. A close to perfect finale for a series that has had a amazing run. After seven films and 10 or so years it ended with dignity and the series best moments. Easily the best fantasy film since Lord of the Rings: Return of the King

Number 2 
The Muppets
Heartfelt, Funny, and moving truly this is a fantastic film. I loved every moment of this film and after 10 long muppetless years it delivered. Once titled the Greatest Muppet movie ever made it fits. Forth wall jokes and great character jokes show that be it the 70's or the 2000's the muppets haven't missed a step.

Number 1

Super 8

The Muppets had it all but clinched for this years best movie until i saw this film. Part Close Encounters part Cloverfield i was swept away with the intrigue and danger that unraveled in front of me. This film had some great unknown child actors that you'd never guess that most of them this was there first movie. They nailed it, every line delivered worked, every tear felt real. For myself not only is this 2011's best movie but easily is a Sci-Fi classic, on par with the greats.

The Human Centipede

Body Horror. What is it? Well, honestly, it could be any type of horror film that deals with unusual bodily harm or modification- be it having another limb put onto your body, or having limbs removed. While the aforementioned removing of limbs sounds like Slasher films, Body Horror is a different genre; it's a different type of removal. Slasher films are limb removal and then wholesale slaughter, while bodily horror is removal and then dealing with loss of limbs. Instead of immediate death, we see more of the disturbing aftermath. From the description of this genre, many would place the later Saw films in it, but they aren’t. Body Horror is a difficult genre to describe. I honestly can't think of many films that fit the genre. Only two come to mind; a German film by the name of Autopsy, and the title I’m reviewing today, The Human Centipede.

Plot: Okay, how do I explain this without grossing you out or confusing you?

The Human Centipede is about a mad doctor who grafts an Asian man and two American girls together, mouth to rectum.

Have you stopped reading yet? No? Okay, let me elaborate a bit more.

So the real story is that an award winning surgeon, famous for separating many conjoined twins, has a mad idea to form a human centipede: 3 humans sharing the same digestive track.The beginning of the film allows us to see his first subject via drugging. He is later killed for the sake of the girls and a Asian man who we never see caught.His other two subjects fall into his hands. He drugs two American tourists who come to his house looking for assistance with a flat tire. The human centipede is formed, and what follows in the final 45 minutes of the film is the centipede trying to escape.

Review: So… yeah. That’s all I have for a plot, because that’s all really anyone needs to hear to say either "Weird! This I've got to see," or "Um, ew! Count me out."

Let me start out by saying that this really isn't that disturbing of a film. Yes, some will watch it and be disturbed by the concept alone, and some will not be because it’s just so bizarre. The concept really is the most disturbing part. There is not a lot of gore, and what is there is never extreme or over the top. It’s just there because it’s showing the consequences of someone being shot. The most violent part of the film is the surgery that takes place. It’s graphic, but no more than you'd expect.

Okay, so on with the actual review. One question a lot of people ask is, "Gore and everything else aside, is this a good movie that actually stands on its own merits rather than the concept alone?” The answer is a sort-of. It’s a decent horror film, but not exactly a scary one, nor -once you get over the overall concept- is it very disturbing. It fails in several aspects. The first fifteen to twenty minutes are almost painful to watch because of the two leads. They can't act, plain and simple. It’s just rough to watch these girls. The director, Tom Six, is not from America and it shows. You can tell the girls were originally meant to be American. They are clichéd, bland, flat, and annoying. They’re airheads. The doctor, however, is brilliant. He is so darkly funny at times that you have to remind yourself what you’re watching. I won't say much because i don't want to ruin the weirdness.

Where it succeeds is that it’s about as original as it gets. They idea is grotesque, and it keeps you watching.

Recommended? Well, yes and no. It's easily one of 2010's most original horror films, but it rode a hype train from its first trailer to its last trailer, setting up expectations that it fell short of. Not only are the lead girls annoying, but they are hard to root for. Dieter Laser, who plays the mad doctor, does a great job being crazily over the top. So it's a recommend title for Netflix viewers who need something different and aren't too grossed out by the concept. Other than that, take a pass if you would have to buy it or rent it and are still uncertain of the plot or idea.

Drive (2011)

Welcome to the most unexpected film I've experienced in a long time. I thought it was normal Hollywood crime thriller but found, ten minutes into the movie, that this was going to be something more intriguing and complex. Drive is sometimes marketed as a standard Hollywood thriller but it is really an art-house film that makes no attempt to hide this fact. The plot starts out simple enough: A Hollywood stunt-driver doubles as a getaway driver for heists. As a driver he is ingenious and his tense cat-and-mouse chase with the police at the movie's start is one of the highlights of the movie. As a criminal, though, he is surly, anti-social and refuses to name or acknowledge the people who hire him during and after the event.

Tough and intimidating as this act is he not inherently evil or disturbed man. His major personality flaw is that is unable to connect with other people and seems to almost be able to blend into a crowd. While a boon possibly in his day-job and side-lines it is problematic in his private life it as it equals non-existence for him in practice. He managed to connect with a mechanic named Shannon (Bryan Cranston) and a neighbour named Irene (Carey Mulligan) for whom he begins to care. Meanwhile, Shannon plans to make Driver a stock-car racer and calls in on an old friend, Bernie Rose, to fund his venture. Rose is a frightening but somewhat affable small-time gangster, played eerily well by comedian Albert Brooks. Eventually a cruel, criminal scam by Nino (Ron Perlemen), Rose's 'business partner', sends them on a collision course with Driver and Irene.

The movie is not really a crime film where plot and action is important, but is really about a man slowly learning to exist. Ryan Gosling, as the unnamed Driver, plays a difficult role where he almost travels through life like an innocent despite reacting to threats with exceptional brutality (the film is quite gory at times). We are never told what made him so emotionally withdrawn, adding only to the character's air of mystery. Stylistically the movie is like a strange, fascinating mixture of German Expressionistic melodrama, a forgettable 1980's Patrick Swayze movie and the works of Andrei Tarkovsky. The results are decidedly mixed; moody, slow and ponderous with a certain sense of theatricality that is uncommon even among art-house films today yet not entirely unwatchable. Although I always admire a movie that wants to be stylistically different this approach annoyed me during the first half. Gosling's role during that time consists mostly of smiling blankly at his friends, unable to say a word. Maybe its because he has almost no personality. But as the movie builds and you get used to the director's stylistic flourishes it becomes clear the director, whether you like his methods or not, knows exactly what he is doing artistically. Gosling's character subtly comes to life and this is where you begin to identify with him, even if he can be scary at times. It is in the latter half of the movie in particularly where the style, plot and characters work at their best and where the movie truly becomes something different.

This is not a film that would please everyone, though. Misleading marketing or the expectations of a more 'normal' movie can anger some. I liked this movie, not just for daring to be different but for succeeding.

8/10

Update

I am writing today to formally welcome our new reviewer Johnnie to the team and also update the blog briefly because there will be a few changes in the next few weeks.

This week I will not be posting a written review. Expect The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo review in a week from friday.

As for changes I will be taking away the genre reviews for every film and replacing them with either a monthly theme, like doing a thriller month, or doing only one a month. Also I am redesigning the blog and might be setting up on Wordpress, that's something that will be discussed with the other reviewers first. One change that has already started is my Vlogs, I will be posting reviews of certain films on Vlogs instead of written reviews. Check out my channel http://www.youtube.com/user/Definingtastes?feature=mhee .Also hopefully if I can will be doing a from the vault reviews, reviews in which I review older films and analyze them to see if they still work in the current age(see my Dawn of the Dead review).The vault reviews are going to have a cut off of 1985. The last and could be the biggest change is as of today (December 1st) I will be working with the other reviewers to get a new name for the blog, something more striking or just something that rolls off the tongue better.

Thanks for reading

Chinatown (1974)

"Can you believe it? We're in the middle of a drought, and the water commissioner drowns. Only in L.A."

Jake Gittes, a successful small-time private eye, is hired by a lady claiming to be the wife of Hollis Mulwray, the man who oversees construction of new dams, canals and pipes for the city of Los Angeles. She believes her husband is having an affair and wants pictures proving it. It's the 1930's; the Great Depression is still in full swing and the City is being terrorized by drought. Hollis is not a popular man and is being attacked in newspapers for his opposition to a dam that would, in theory, solve some of the water problems the city is facing. Jake accepts the case and snaps several pictures of Mulwray spending time with a beautiful young girl. He's not really surprised when these pictures appear in the newspapers, but even his years of experience does not prepare him for the real Evelyn Mulwray who breezes into his office with her lawyer to sue him. Angry that he was "made a patsy of" he seeks out Hollis Mulwray only to find that he's dead, possibly murdered, and his wife seems to be acting very suspiciously. But so is her father, who was at one point Hollis' business partner and whom never seemed too keen on their marriage.

Film Noir is a movie genre celebrated for its cynical, despairing, bleak attitudes and for those qualities alone Roman Polanski's Chinatown will forever be ensured a warm place in the heart of many movie fans. Yet it is also one of the few noir movies that is, in a certain sense, deeply critical of the cynical attitudes of its characters. Other stories in the genre (and outside of it, actually) consider cynicism to be an asset that the character wields like a club, but in the hands of Towne and Polanski it limits them; at a important juncture in the plot Gittes (Jack Nicholson) makes a cynical assumption, based no doubt on years of tiresome experience, and triggers a tragedy. The person affected is one of the few people in the story who had entirely pure motives, other than Hollis Mulwray, who is killed in the first half-hour of the movie. Made only a few years after Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate, was senselessly murdered by the Manson family, it is for the most part only good people who die in the movie. Those who seem evil to us, or who walk the borderland between the two, survive to be haunted by the their sins and desires.

One of the many good things Chinatown has is a pitch-perfect screenplay that evokes the language and motions of classic film noir without making it seem like a pastiche, something also helped by the cinematography, which is not set-bound. No doubt each shot had to be chosen to hide the modern edges of the city that was rising out in the deserts of California; Polanski gives us a picture of what Los Angeles looked and felt like before it became a city dominated by skyscrapers and celebrities. This still was the Los Angeles that Raymond Chandler sardonically evoked in his Philip Marlowe novels.

Nicholson plays Gittes as a man outside of the everything, even when he's in the middle of it. He keeps the world at arm's length, never quite wanting to get involved in any cause, ready never to be taken in by anything; he's tarnished and maybe a little bit mean. He begins to see the shape that the conspiracy central to the story takes and what's at stake, but his cynicism makes him foolish. Naturally he finds himself slowly falling for Evelyn, whom he has little reason to trust. She hires him to officially look for her husband's killer, but he later feels that the police might suspect he's blackmailing her with something and needs to tread carefully with her and with her money. Faye Dunaway plays Evelyn Mulwray perfectly; there is no other actress from that time that I can imagine in the role. Although Nicholson is the lead she is, without a doubt, the actual star of the movie. Nicholson can carry a movie better than most actors but it's ultimately Dunaway who turns the movie from a routine crime story to something powerful with her enigmatic performance.

The same can be said of another key character named Noah Cross, played deliciously by director-turned-actor John Huston, a grizzled old millionaire who made his money selling water to Los Angeles. His dialogue uncovers a degree of self-loathing when he says: "'Course I'm respectable. I'm old. Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough." Although he acts like he's concerned about his daughter it is clear that there is a large gulf between him and Evelyn which he downplays in front of Gittes. Huston, off course, was one of the founders of the film noir genre and his directorial debut, The Maltese Falcon, is considered an indisputable classic. Huston plays Cross as a darker variation of himself; a good-humoured, outspoken but guarded man. Like Evelyn he's got secrets of his own.

The third important character in this movie is one very few people would consider that interesting, but who is essential to the story. This character is Lieutenant Escobar, who is investigating the Mulwray murder case for the LAPD and who is portrayed by little-known actor Perry Lopez. Escobar is a parallel of the Nicholson character. Both served in Chinatown as policeman, both essentially view the proceedings through the prism of weary cynicism. Escobar, however, is still part of the system, and maybe because of it he's not trying to over complicate the case more than necessary. He's got a job to do and he's not afraid of the rich and powerful.

Chinatown is the kind of high budget movie that does not get made today, usually because even in art-house cinemas a classic noir is not as popular as it used to be. It is deliberately paced with a complex plot unfolding slowly; if the movie moved any faster it would have been incomprehensible. It also has the layered complexity of a novel despite being written directly for the big screen. Author Robert Towne turned down a lucrative writing job to write this movie, which was produced by Robert Evans who also had his hand in several other prominent Paramount movies at the time, namely The Great Gatsby and The Godfather. Towne had a different ending in mind, and had a big fall-out at the time with Polanski, who wanted a bleaker ending. Towne would later admit that Polanski's ending was a better ending than the original. The movie did surprisingly well on its release, generating a large profit and catching a few Oscars. Its success lead to the inevitable sequel; Towne wrote The Two Jakes, which is essentially solid but dragged too much at places (but I blame Jack Nicholson for that; he's a better actor than a director). It was meant to be part of a trilogy, but due to the luke-warm response of the sequel I doubt the third movie would ever get made.

Still, on its own, Chinatown, stands as one of the great masterpieces of American cinema. It's slowly uncoiling plot does not bare its fangs until the last twenty minutes, and only then will you understand why this was one of the most startling tragedies of its time as well.

Rating: 9.5/10

Paranormal activity 3

Plot: In 2005, Katie delivers a box of old videotapes to her pregnant sister, Kristi, and Kristi's husband, Daniel. A year later, Kristi and Daniel's house is apparently burglarized and the tapes go missing. This is the accounts of those lost tapes. These lost tapes show the accounts of the year 1988. What did these girls experience that was so horrifying that they needed to be stolen?

Review: As I have stated in previous reviews, I have enjoyed the Paranormal Activity series thus far. The first two films managed to be scary without an over-reliance on jump scares. Very few jump scares made the fear feel genuine. Anyone familiar with the P.A. timeline knows P.A.2 is a prequel. Pretty common knowledge, but as it turns out P.A.3 also is a prequel. During the course of the film we are brought into the past of Katie and Kristi and what happened during the summer of 1988.

Let's start with the good aspects of the film. Just like the first two in the series, P.A. 3 works very well when the scares come from the atmosphere, giving the film a evenly paced build-up. During the times where the scares slow down we are given some minor character development. This is a welcome change from most typical horror films. While the plot doesn't go too far from your typical haunting film, it does open up during the final act. The final act is the best segment using some really great camera angles to produce true build up and suspense. If the entire film had been like it, this would have been the best in the series. While some parts of the film fail to succeed in producing scares outside of jolts, there are a handful of scary moments. Great moments include Bloody Mary, falling tables, and ghostly sheets. To say more would truly rob these moments.

A final positive that I feel should get some mention is the director uses some great shots that come off as terrifying. They use the layout of the house to their advantage. You end up watching every mirror, hallway, and door throughout the film.


On the negative side, there were some pretty obvious plot issues, beginning with the premise. The footage is “captured” by the boyfriend of the girls’ mother’s boyfriend of a few months. He’s allowed to set up cameras in her daughters’ room. She never questions this, or views the tapes, which brings us to issue number two. After all the footage Dennis catches Julie never watches the tapes. These might seem like minor complaints but when you think about it, those unravel the film. As plot goes, the final issues stems mor off the genre than the film itself. Like many found footage films there is the underlying question of how are we viewing these tapes. It’s overall a minor issue, but clearly there.

As I explained in my previous reviews of the P.A. series, I loved the fact they stayed away from cliché jump scares. Guess what this one does? Yes, it throws dozens upon dozens of jump scares at you. They grow stale and predictable long before the final scare. As I have experienced with films like this, a constant amount of jump scares serves more to anger the audience then to frighten them. One strong suit of the first two films was the pacing. They purposefully keep things low-key to achieve a build up unlike most in modern cinema. The truly frightening moments don't really start until forty five minutes into the film, allowing for a sense of calm to take over you. It made the scares much more effective. P.A. 3 starts with them before the fifteen minute mark, where you already see the outline of ghost. I feel it took away from atmosphere and build-up. When scares come that soon you start bracing yourself for them during each quite moment.

The pacing and constant jump scares are missteps for such a promising series.

Overall: 6.5 out of 10
There are some standout moments in this film and a great final act, but P.A.3 sacrificed atmosphere for cheap scares, causing it to lose the magic of the first 2 films. It's not a bad film, just a bad P.A. film. Hopefully, this will be the last in a series that suffered a steep decline.

Grave Encounters

Grave Encounters falls along the same line as Paranormal Activity. But instead of it following the haunting of a family it follows a TV Show host as they go to explore an abandoned and closed down insane asylum. Upon arriving at the site for their next episode they are given a tour of the building. After the tour the keeper of the building looks them, which is what the host wanted. That's when everything goes wrong.

The goal of the movie was to make it feel as real as possible. Of which when it started I thought it was based on a true story. That was until you see some of the special effects and CG. That was when I knew it was fake and regained my composure, and to also scare those that were watching the movie with me.

The movie is filmed in the first person perspective, there's a lot of random quick zooms and shaky cam. So if you get motion sickness easy I wouldn't suggest watching this in HD. Overall I give this movie a 7 out of 10 with a re watchable rating of high.