The Fourth Kind (Review)

I admit it: I fell for The Fourth Kind, hook, line and sinker. If you know nothing about it and have any desire to see The Fourth Kind, stop reading and do so, or suffer a meaningless, giggle-inducing 98 minutes.

Written and directed by film-industry newcomer Olatunde Osunsanmi, The Fourth Kind is a sloppy, over-the-top sci-fi thriller only forgivable when viewers go blind to the hoax it revolves around. In this way it is a peculiar film, defined almost entirely by viewer knowledge of its subject matter, which, when minimal, yields an enthralling and terrifying experience, but, when sufficient, turns shrieks into laughter and gaping mouths of disbelief into gaping mouths in service to a yawn.

The film poses as a dramatization of actual case studies backed by real video footage and audio recordings, many of which are shown throughout. This is the hook.

As the film begins, actress Milla Jovovich speaks directly to the audience outing herself as a performer in the film, and purports to be playing a character based on a real woman, Dr. Abbey Tyler, who is also featured via a filmed interview intermittently. This is the line.

The Box (Review)

The year is 1976, an innocent age in which an unmarked package is nothing to worry about, and half of Frank Langella walks around being mysterious. It's a time when conspiracy lurks around every corner, when no one can be trusted; it's the time a terrible movie occupies. It's The Box.

Adapted from a short story by Richard Matheson (I Am Legend), The Box is a science fiction, fantasy, mystery, thriller, conspiracy, romance, horror film with so many plot points and references that it caves in on itself, revealing in its wake the dusty remains of Cameron Diaz trying to act sincere.

When couple Norma and Arthur Lewis (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) are visited by the deformed Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) who offers them cold hard cash in return for the couple's cooperation in killing an unknown person, a series of off-the-wall events involving hypnotic, somnabulant peeping-Toms, government cover-ups and other-worldly magical nonsense are set off.

Paranormal Activity (Review)

With a tense, grinding build-up that lasts the majority of the film, Paranormal Activity shows a patience that few thrillers can manage to compete with. The jump-starting fright phenomenon is slow to begin, but when the lights start to illuminate the theatre, there's no denying that this film will keep you up at night.

The film follows young couple Katie and Micah as they attempt to capture on tape evidence of the paranormal presence that has supposedly followed Katie throughout her life. Produced for around $15,000, the entire film is shot through Micah's portable camera he goes nowhere without.

Paranormal Activity is a combination of The Blair Witch Project (1999) and Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Kairo (2001), mixing a low-budget, documentary style with the chills of ghosts, demons and poltergeist. The film's realism is what drives it, as those who are blind going into the film question throughout: Did this actually happen?

Paranormal Activity, unlike many of its horror/thriller rivals of the day, is more concerned with quality than quantity. Katie and Micah are full, three-dimensional characters whose personalities effect the plot instead of vice versa. Who they are and how they manage as a couple effects how they deal with being terrorized by the thing they can't explain.

Much like Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity makes the camera its own character. As its being hauled around, peaked around corners and subject to what the couple does not see while they sleep, the audience begins to feel like the kid that's forced to go first into the haunted house. In this way, viewers actually play a role through the eye of the camera, making the film that much more real and that much more terrifying.

The quality is also in the pacing: the film stacks up the tension bit by bit, letting the audience relax on occasion between night scenes, but is relentlessly warning of the further terror to come. When the couple isn't dealing directly with demonic possession, they are slowing piecing together information and discussing their next move, a progression that only further adds to the suspense.

The only problem with this structure is its repetitiveness. The audience is in constant wait of a climax, which bodes well for a thrilling ride, but frustrates when that climax doesn't come when expected. This becomes a distraction late in the film as viewers lie in wait for something “big” to happen, constantly questioning when the movie will pick up.

It's refreshing to see a horror movie return to its genre's roots, focusing on what's “horrific” about how humans view the world rather than what in the world scares us. How Micah sees his role as a human being in relation to what exists around him becomes the truly terrifying subject of the film. The fact that we are not always in control—of our loved ones, of ourselves and of the other beings of this world—is what scares us the most in Paranormal Activity.

Nary a cheesy or laughable moment exists throughout the couple's experience, as queues from shows such as “Most Haunted” and “Ghost Hunters” are seemingly replicated in depicting a truly eerie demonic presence. The sounds of the house prove to be one of the scariest elements of the film—the repeated thud of footsteps on the stairwell becomes a trademark of the evil in pursuit of Katie. Even the always-present whir of the camera—what might be called the film's only soundtrack—is enough to push viewers down into their seats.

The ending, which supposedly was altered upon Steven Spielberg's suggestion, in my opinion, could have been done differently, but still serves justice to the overall picture. The lack of credits is another way Paranormal Activity feeds the realism, a trick first time writer-director Oren Peli was smart to use.

With a calculated, intelligent script and an uncanny knack for realism, Paranormal Activity is the best scare cinema has had to offer in a long time. The film's unbelievably low production cost coupled with its break-neck shooting time (reportedly 7 days) proves that good movies rely on the fundamentals of film making, not the size of its star's salary.

Halloween II (Review)

One of the first of a wave of remakes meant to re-energize and re-establish otherwise played and creatively starved series, Rob Zombie's 2007 Halloween was a good effort, but made a lot of the same mistakes that continue to plague the slasher genre. Now two years later, Zombie returns with Halloween II, proving that Michael Myers should have died a long, long time ago.

The refreshing distinctions that saved the 2007 film from failing completely, such as a thorough look into the childhood of Myers, which remained untouched since the pop-culture icon first started slicing up teenagers back in 1978, are completely absent from its sequel. The film starts off directly where the last one ended—and this is Zombie's first mistake. Halloween II adopts the poorly constructed plot and laughable dialogue that made the second half of the 2007 remake so disappointing. With little briefing, we are placed in the hospital with protagonist Laurie Strode, who shot Myers in the head at the end of the last film. Unbeknownst to Strode, Michael Myers has survived (who would have guessed?) and has infiltrated the hospital looking to finish Strode off, thus beginning another 2 hours of running and hiding.

With a weak central plot, Halloween II relies on the random victims of Myers to provide the meat of the story (no pun intended). Zombie adds scenes of unimportant and unrelated killings in an obvious effort to supplement a tattered main narrative. As if it hasn't been established enough already, Zombie emphasizes Myers' ability to easily take down those who oppose him on numerous occasions. Myers kills six people in two separate scenes who are completely unrelated to the story, providing unsatisfying “fluff” that does the opposite of what it's designed to do and incites boredom instead of suspense.

A “disturbing” series of dream sequences are littered throughout the film, bringing back Myers' mother from the last movie (played by Zombie's wife, Sheri) in an effort to add a sort of spiritualism to the film. Aesthetically reminiscent of The Unborn (2009), the sequences suggest (in a highly underdone way) that all the Myers share some sort of spiritual wholeness, thus inevitably connecting Strode, Michael's long-lost sister, to the killer. If done correctly, this emphasis may have been slightly interesting, but instead it comes off more like a plug for Sheri Zombie's acting career.

Halloween II also brings back Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), Myers' lifetime psychiatrist who spends the movie traveling to different venues promoting his new book based on the life and times of Michael Myers. This final side story is the most unfocused of them all. In it, Zombie criticizes those who prey on the misfortune of others—the media sharks and publicity-seekers that use tragic events for their own profit. Although clear, the message comes as a footnote to the picture as a whole, merely providing another distraction from the lacking plot.

Following the lead of many modern-day directors who try to cram too many storylines, ideas and themes into their films, Zombie becomes bogged down with his own ambitions and ends up with multiple unsatisfying, unfinished and underdeveloped narratives in one movie. Instead of achieving a cohesive and effective message, Halloween II leaves the viewer with confusion and bewilderment. Why did he kill that guy? Was he in the first one? Where is the killer? Why are we watching this?

Despite the film's inability to deliver a meaningful and enjoyable experience on the whole, I don't want to completely discourage Zombie. He obviously has cinematic vision, adding some interesting stylistic compositions and artistically creative sequences to the film. In one scene, a blurring effect is added as Myers takes a victim in slow motion. The actual murder is presumed and not shoved in our faces like usual, which was both refreshing and eerily effective. Later in the film, Zombie pulls the camera back to watch Strode flee in the moonlight which overexposes the lens in a visually pleasing composition. These examples of creativity save the film from becoming an utter loss.

The slasher genre is a slowly fading trend. What was once a new and exciting statement about violence and fear is now a played shadow of its former self. Where others such as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight succeeded, the Halloween remakes fail to revitalize a fading legacy and are a clear example of how none of us, no matter how hard we try, can breath life into something that was never alive to begin with. Let's hope Michael Myers goes the way of the slasher and dies off, once and for all.