Silent Hill (2006)

I'm about to blow all ya'lls damn minds. You ready for this? Secure your butts firmly for the following statement: There do exist in the world good video game movies.

I know, it's crazy to contemplate but they're out there. Much like a field mouse hiding in tall grass from the sight of a circling hawk, they are shy creatures that don't pop their heads out often. Those are the good ones, anyway. The bad ones are like lemmings running off a cliff - numerous and stupid.

After the shellacking Paul W. S. Anderson gave the "Resident Evil" franchise by leaving an upper-decker starring Milla Jovovich in its bathroom, there seemed little to hope for with an adaptation of the other big survival horror video game franchise, "Silent Hill." I mean, what were we supposed to expect? Were we really supposed to believe that a French filmmaker was going to take a heavily cerebral game littered with nightmarish abominations against which there was no hope in fighting and make it into a movie that showcased helplessness and used the darkness in the human soul as the main antagonist in something that was truly terrifying? Why on earth would we think that?

Our expectations for these are at rock bottom because Paul W. S. Anderson thinks Alice needs to Matrix-kick a skinless dog. Because that's what I think of when I think "Resident Evil."

For that reason, I would not be at all surprised if you've never seen "Silent Hill." Trust me, I understand. I thought it looked like crap too. But even at the time it turned out to be a satisfyingly dark, twisted and disturbing film which I liked a good bit, and it's only gotten better over time as more and more video game movies have come out to remind us how rare it is to get one that's barely competent, let alone actually good.

"Silent Hill" is not an average video game adaptation, as there is less of an emphasis on action and more story and atmosphere going on. The few action sequences to be found are essentially made up of the characters running away from whatever is after them, as it's pretty near impossible to combat the more demonic residents of Silent Hill. And that's a perfectly logical choice to have, as it would have made far less sense for any of the characters to perform any kung-fu on Pyramid Head. And naturally, this makes the demons far more scary than a random zombie charging only to get its head blown off in a fountain of black CGI blood. Zombies get taken out all the time. The monsters here can't be. Which sounds scarier? Remember, kids, this is supposed to be a horror film.

Explaining the story of "Silent Hill" is a little bit of a challenge. After all it's based on a Japanese made video game. The stories to those never make any damn sense anyway, although this one is a little less obtuse than, say, your average "Final Fantasy" entry since VII. The main idea is that in a town called "Silent Hill," a horrible thing was done to a little girl by a group of religious fanatics. Because of that, the town burned, and the girl was split (?) into two halves - one containing all her generous amounts of rage (Alessa), and the other containing everything left in Alessa that was good and innocent, Sharon. Now, some 10 years later, the unknowing Sharon is being pulled towards Silent Hill so that Alessa can fulfill her revenge on the fanatics who still live in a kind of limbo in the town, almost like another plane of existence created by Alessa's rage.

Creating another realm of reality with your anger. That's pretty pissed off.

The religious metaphors are all over the place in this movie, so much so that I can't help but assume that most of the film is likely meant to be an allegory such as "Dante's Inferno." The imagery would certainly fit, and I know that there is a lot of symbolism to be found in the games themselves, which fans have speculated on much over the years. I started feeling like maybe the whole thing was a hidden allegory for stillbirth or the death of a child or something. Maybe it's a coincidence that there was a lot having to do with death coming out of someone's body, and maybe it's a coincidence that there's a lot of hospital imagery and even demonic nurses and undead child-monsters. And maybe it's also a coincidence that Radha Mitchell spends the whole movie running around looking for her lost daughter. But I'm not so sure.

Having only played the games for an hour or so (I was unable to get used to the controls), I can't vouch for the accuracy of the translation from game to movie. But from what I've seen of the games, this is probably one of the most accurate adaptations you can find as far as tone and atmosphere goes. The camera is also used in a fashion that is incredibly similar to the games, and it's actually quite noticeable that the filmmakers took great pains to get the little details just right.

Hellooooooo nurse! Wait, no. No "Hello nurse" for those ladies.

The camerawork is really something that deserves mentioning because I've never seen a video game movie pull off the unique look of a game so well. This is so important when it comes to franchises like "Silent Hill" that use the camera to add to the tension, as it blocks points of view on occasion to let us see anything except what's directly ahead. The most obvious shots among those include when Radha Mitchell is first running along the dark streets of Silent Hill after the dark "other world" appears. This whole sequence plays out much like watching someone playing the game, all the way down to Radha's running. It's fantastically well done and really sells the look of the movie.

In addition to the camerawork are some truly horrific gore effects that had me doing a double take and saying "Well, I've never seen THAT done before." And while I've seen gorier films in reality, it's a smart enough movie, and director Christophe Gans is a smart enough filmmaker to know that sometimes subtlety is the more effective path, and leaves some of the more gruesome moments either slightly hidden or cut so quickly that your eye can't absorb it fully, and leaves it more up to your imagination.

But sometimes, you just have to show someone's face in a big close-up as they get burned at the stake in real time.

My favorite segment of the entire film is a sequence that is shot like an old, scratched up 8 mm film. It shows what happened to Alessa as she narrates over it, and it's quiet, artsy, and chilling all at the same time. It's the best highlight to show off how stylistic "Silent Hill" is, how beautiful it can be in it's horror, and how serious it's taking itself as not just a "video game movie," but a film. I guess that's what you get when you hire French directors.

So the story is solid if a bit obfuscated at times, the creature effects are disturbing and effective, the gore is shocking but tasteful, the setting is oddly beautiful, and the suspense is pins-and-needles. The only thing that is left to mention is the cast, populated by some of my favorite actors like Radha Mitchell and Sean Bean, who are both always very good. And my favorite creepy girl Jodelle Ferland plays the parts of Shannon, Alessa and what is essentially the Devil. Jodelle's role is somewhat ironic considering that six years later she'd basically be reprising her role as Alessa when she played the witch in "ParaNorman." That's pretty funny.

How are you so good, Jodelle? You're like, 12 here.

The female driven supporting cast is also quite good. It includes a bunch of actresses I haven't really seen in much else, but I liked them a lot. Laurie Holden's tough cop who helps Radha Mitchell in her quest was a strong physical presence, and has one of the most powerful and disturbing scenes in the film. Deborah Unger was really creepy as Alessa's birth-mother, who is now I guess the crazy cat-lady de jour of Silent Hill.  There was also Tanya Allen as Anna, an ill-fated resident of Silent Hill who is almost innocent in her intolerance and bigotry, and I found her to be oddly cute despite her being filthy and kind of twitchy. And finally we have Alice Krige as the cult leader, a fantastic villain in a town full of demons, somehow managing to be more evil than the thing tearing people's skin off. And it took me forever to realize that she was the Borg Queen in "Star Trek: First Contact." Guess I didn't recognize her with hair.

Seriously. There are things that spit acid out of a hole in their chest, and you're the one who's scaring me.

One of the most interesting aspects that I mentioned before is that the real "villain" in this film is the darkness inside people themselves. Like the aforementioned allegorical aspects of the story, the demons in the town seem to be more like projections of the evil that the townsfolk have crafted themselves, only to have to be unleashed and turned upon them. And as they hide in their sanctuary from the evil they created through their cruelty and fanaticism, it's clear this is a battle they can never win, and they are all lost souls forever trapped in a purgatory of their own making. And Radha Mitchell has to plunge into this Hell to save her daughter and herself, which in itself may be wholly impossible.

It's easy to go into a movie like "Silent Hill" with a lot of skepticism. But this is a deceptively good film when you can get past the fact that it's a video game movie. In the genre it occupies it can hold its head high as an artsy, beautifully disgusting piece of work that does its job admirably. And it was also nice to see a movie based on a game wrap itself up nicely as opposed to leaving it open with an unsatisfying ending just to make sure they can make a half-assed sequel later.

Wait a minute. What's next on my list?

 AW, SON OF A -

Before getting to that mess, check out the trailer for the much better movie.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Silent Hill" may be one of the objectively best video game adaptations ever made. It's moody, it's shocking, it's actually scary, and it even looks like the game it was based on. Don't let the genre scare you off. This is one that I really like.

The Tall Man (2012)

One of my favorite things about watching movies is that occasion when you find yourself watching something that completely throws you for a loop and leaves you saying to yourself "What in the crap is happening here?" At least, when it's done well, that is.

I was not expecting much from "The Tall Man." In fact the only reason I rented it was for Stephen McHattie and Jodelle Ferland. On first glance it appeared no more than a standard slasher flick, what with the frankly lame title and the cover, featuring Jessica Biel staring blankly ahead as a generic hooded figure towers behind her ominously.

Seriously, is that the best cover they could come up with? There's an art to making movies look unappealing and bland, and movies like "The Tall Man" are an easy target for it. Look at the cover. It tells us absolutely nothing about the movie. In fact, it's misleading once you watch the damn thing, because not only is it not a slasher film, it's not even horror.

The second thing is the title. "The Tall Man" is just a boring, generic sounding name. The Italian title translates to "The Children of Cold Rock." That's actually far more accurate and interesting, despite not flowing off the tongue quite so easily. Not that any of this really matters to the movie itself, I just bring it all up because "The Tall Man" as a film is better than one might expect upon first impressions.

Although it is a bit ridiculous how often Jessica Biel gets tied to a chair in this movie.

"The Tall Man" is about a run down former mining community in Oregon that has been plagued with the disappearance of children at the rate of about one every 2 months. As a result, a local legend has emerged which tells of a tall, hooded man seen at the scenes of the disappearances, and he's become something of a boogy-man. At the start of the film, Stephen McHattie, playing an FBI agent, is leading the search for Jessica Biel's missing child. We then flash back to 36 hours earlier to see the events that led up to his disappearance.

That's really all the setup I want to give away. Not too far into the movie, "The Tall Man" starts going places I had no idea it was going to go. Suffice to say that at about half an hour in, I was saying to myself "Well, this is going to be a short movie." It almost seemed like the climax of the film, with the confrontation between the villain and the protagonist, had been rushed to the end of the first act. From that point on, it's really hard to tell exactly where things are headed in this film.

In fact, "The Tall Man" made me feel like an idiot for attempting to call it before it was done unfolding completely. I'll admit that I thought I had this movie's number down pat, and there was not a little amount of scoffing on my part going on, I have to tell you. The condescending snob in me started firing up the eye rolls and the "Well, obviously, that's what's going on now" remarks, but it was all for naught, because at about the hour mark the movie had me completely baffled as to what I was watching.

Even Stephen McHattie, in all his craggy faced glory, is trying to figure out what the hey is going on.

The effect was so strong that I honestly began to doubt my own observations. What I first considered to be an impossible place for "The Tall Man" to go ended up being not only the destination, but one that actually made a lot of sense. It wasn't a plot twist for the sake of having a plot twist. It's nice to see something like that handled well, because that is an easy thing to screw up. And I see it screwed up all the time.

If there was one thing I had a legitimate gripe with, it was that once again, Jodelle Ferland got totally shafted in the role she was playing. She is such a freaking amazing actress, but it seems that nobody wants to cast her in a role that really shows her off to the amount she should be. For example, in this movie she narrates the beginning and the end, and she is a reasonably significant character despite not getting a huge amount of screen time. In fact there were several occasions when it surprised me when she popped up after being gone so long, because I had actually forgotten she was in it.

But here's the thing: They made her a mute. A mute! Can you even believe that? That's such a waste of talent. Now, don't get me wrong, she tore that role up like she destroys every role. But come on. Let the poor girl speak, will ya? I'm sure it was a challenging and interesting role for her to take, since she had to convey all those emotions without dialogue, and I respect that, but when I see one of my favorite actresses in a legitimately good movie that I'm enjoying, dammit I want the whole package!

Look at that face. Yeah. Now just imagine how good she is when she's speaking.

Actually, besides Jodelle, the whole cast was good. I'm not a huge Jessica Biel fan, but she was fine. William B. Davis, immortalized as "The Cigarette Smoking Man" on "The X-Files" played the sheriff, which is a weird exercise in suspension of disbelief since it was impossible to not look at him and assume he wasn't a bad guy. Stephen McHattie was awesome as always but like Jodelle, he didn't get enough screen time for my liking. Oh well. At least he was allowed to talk.

So I guess the whole point of this is that "The Tall Man" is a movie that exceeded expectations by a pretty wide margin. I know this entry was kind of vague, but to be honest I feel a bit like I've spoiled the effect by simply acknowledging the fact that it isn't what you'd expect it to be. So I guess I'll shut up now.

You can keep talking, though. Seriously. Like in every movie.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I liked "The Tall Man" much more than I was expecting to. It's a very well made, completely engrossing drama that doesn't telegraph anything, making it a very effective mystery. And if this is your first exposure to Jodelle Ferland, hey there's bonus points for you. Now go watch "Tideland," where she actually speaks.

The Cabin In The Woods (2012)

Some of you who read my blog with any regularity may remember back to earlier this summer when I was threatened with virtual castration for not worshiping the ground that the Holiest of Holies, Our Lord and Savior Himself, Joss Whedon walked on. Ok, those of you who aren't on my Facebook would have no clue about this, but suffice to say it got far uglier than I was wanting or expecting. After my "Avengers" review, I had a lot of people telling me that I was A) insane for considering it "Ok" instead of a perfect flawless gem sent from On High, and that B) I went into the movie wanting to hate it from the beginning, and that I never gave it a fair shot.

Fine. I still stand by A till the end of my days, but maybe there's a little bit of truth in B. But you can't really blame me for not expecting to love it. I like to use this analogy:

If I have a bag of potato chips that expired 40 years ago, and I dust off the bag, open it up, take out a chip and eat it, and my reaction was "Ewww! God, that's disgusting!" but then I proceeded to eat another chip, have the same reaction only this time I'm dry-heaving, and then another chip and another with the same result every time, by the time I got to that sixth potato chip wouldn't it not only be reasonable but expected of me to be a tad apprehensive?

I'm sorry I can't help myself from not liking the way Joss Whedon writes. I'm very, very sorry for that. And I'm very, very sorry that Whedonites get so enraged by someone having even a middling opinion of him. But why should I expect to suddenly and without warning or cause suddenly adore something he wrote, when every single thing he writes has the exact same things in it that bug me? That would make no sense.

But that's not what I came to talk to you about today. Came to talk about a cabin.

Yes, it's "The Cabin In The Woods," the horror film that was getting all kinds of buzz and crazy good reviews all over the place. The phrase "game changer™" was thrown around quite a bit as I recall. That's enough to get me worried any time that's brought up, honestly. But hey, a lot of people I know saw it and loved it. So why not? Let's give this a spin.

AW CRAP.

I knew that intro was there for a reason. Am I really doing this? Am I seriously having to go back into Whedon territory again? Man, every time one of these comes up I'm having to walk on freaking eggshells. I'm just tired of having every critique I make of this guy's work torn apart while people call me a jerk and threaten to revoke my "Nerd Card." No, you know what? I've got that mess laminated, okay? You don't even know the pristine condition my Nerd Card is in. It's still in its original packaging, bitch. You ain't revoking crap.

But before this gets too negative before I even start talking about "The Cabin In The Woods," let me throw this slightly confusing disclaimer up right meow:

I thought it was good. But I disliked it. But I didn't hate it. I don't think.

I could end this entry right there, because that absurd, confusing sentence sums up my feelings on "The Cabin In The Woods," which was that while I thought it was a well made, generally well written movie, my finals thoughts were so freaking jumbled that I honestly have no idea whether or not I liked it. I just came away saying "What the hell did I just watch?" And it wasn't always in the good way.

This is going to be an extraordinarily difficult movie to write about, seeing as the main draw of this movie is the slow reveal of the lingering big question: "What the crap is going on here?" Once you know what's really going down in this movie, I would imagine much of whatever magic contained would be lost, so I'm going to avoid spoilers as much as I can. Let's say that for now, I won't give anything away that the trailer wouldn't have given away already. Eventually I'll have to get into spoilers, but I'll let you know when I do.

The movie begins as a group of five friends who look like they came from casting call of a "Friday the 13th" sequel get together to go to the titular cabin in the woods. They are all extraordinarily stock in the fact that they are all walking stereotypes for the slasher genre. You've got the Jock, the Whore, the Nerd, the Stoner, and the Virgin. But here's the part where the whole "clever bit" comes into play - that is exactly on purpose.

You know, if I were in a group of people so stereotypical, I wouldn't leave the house.

In a control room, there are a bunch of people following these kids, setting them up along the way to be victims in what can only be called a slasher movie, only in real life. These people are literally setting up these kids to be butchered. The "why" is the big question going on throughout "The Cabin In The Woods," which is why I'm really going to have to leave the description at that. Any more would give too much away, which is something I don't want to do.

The cast has Chris Hemsworth as the Jock, and is probably the most recognizable face around as long as you don't count Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford as the two control room guys we follow most of the movie. Nobody else of real note is in it, unless you count Anna Hutchison as the Whore. She was the Yellow Ranger on one of the numerous Power Rangers series. So yeah, there's that. I suppose it's worth noting that "The Cabin In The Woods" contains a scene where you see the Yellow Rangers boobs. That's something I guess.

One person I was excited to see on the cast list was Jodelle Ferland, an actress I really like who tends to always play a creepy young(ish) girl. And what do you know? She's playing a zombie here. And while it was great to see her, why they gave her no lines is beyond me. It's almost like they intentionally wasted talent. There's also another actress I really like who popped in at the end in a surprise cameo, but I wouldn't want to spoil anything. (Protip: Look at the labels at the bottom of this entry.)

Kristen Connolly, playing the Virgin, is the real main character however, and to be honest I liked her. Yeah her part was just as stock as everyone else's, but hey, she was charming and pretty cute as well. So I guess I didn't want to see her die. That means that the movie is doing at least one thing right, because usually I hate characters in slasher movies.

Like this guy.

Oh man. It had to happen at one point, didn't it? The freaking Stoner. You know, it's not that Fran Kranz did a terrible job with this character, it's just that I can't stand that guy. From the minute he shows up, I know that I'm going to have to suffer through endless monologues from them about how "The system is keeping us down!" and "You've got to open your doors of perception, man!" It just gets so old so fast, and I just want them to die quickly as possible. And of course the first time we see the Stoner he is driving a car while smoking from a bong the size of Hulk Hogan's leg. Truly this character will be a delight.

I just miss guys like Shaggy who weren't so militant about "sticking it to the man." He was just mellow, and ate Scooby Snacks. What's so wrong with that?

That also brings me to the spoiler section of the review. I'd advise skipping to the end if you haven't seen "The Cabin In The Woods." Seriously, because you might like it, and I'd hate to ruin anything.

///////BEGIN MASSIVE SPOILERS\\\\\\\\

What it all boils down to, when I have to talk about my real impressions of the movie, was that the story made absolutely no sense to me. At all.

So you've got this group of vaguely defined, government programs around the world that set up and run these sacrifices to these Eldrich Horrors from beyond Space and Time (oh, just call it Cthulhu). My question is: "Why do these Gods care about slasher movie cliches?"

Why the five stereotypes? Why the mythical beasts and movie monster tropes? Why do those suddenly exist in the real world? Are they just there now? Are they created by man? Or the Gods? Why would the Gods know about movie monsters? They watch a lot of HBO, do they? Did they make them as a favor to us and say "Here, use these for our amusement?" Did they have horror movies back before the Dawn of Time? Are the Gods big fans of those? Or are they implying that the slasher movie naturally evolved from these real life TOP SECRET nobody knows about programs? Why in Japan is there the "Scary undead kid with long hair in her eyes" monster? Was that ancient evil always around, but nobody ever knew about it until Japan started making horror movies in the 2000s?

"And lo! Great Cthulhu raised his blasphemous bulk from the black ocean waters and declared Rob Zombie's "Halloween" series to be totally lame."

And you can't tell me that it's just something that mankind did to appease these Gods, because that seems awfully specific to me. It's remarked that the Gods "want them to suffer." Okay. Fine. Take them out to a woodshed and take a blowtorch to them starting from the bottom up. That seems like an adequate amount of suffering to me.

But oh no, the Gods are PICKY about these things. No, the sacrifices have to die in a specific order, according to these human-based horror movie cliches, and if you mess it up, you're boned and the Earth is doomed.

"HAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA. HA! It's funny because it's referencing other movies. Brilliant.

And once again I ask "WHY?" What possible reason is there for any of that? I'm just saying that it seems like an absurd amount of work to:
1) Set up a space-age technology level underground fortress, 
2) Break all known laws of science and medicine to create these inhuman abominations from Hell 
3) Capture them 
4) Store them 
5) Create a Star Trek level force field around this wooded area 
6) Theatrically stage an entire "Truman Show" style ruse 
7) Abduct and murder five innocent people with movie monsters that are now real somehow 
8) Cover THAT up without being found out and 
9) Do that EVERY YEAR 

Unless that was specifically mandated by the Gods, I would think they would probably stick with the blowtorch in the woodshed.

Of course we all know the reason. It's so directer/co-writer Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon can do Whedon's patented same old "Oh look at me I'm EVER so clever and cheeky" self-referential writing he does in everything he's involved in. And once again, here's where I look like the jerk because I didn't like Lord Whedon's stuff, but there it is. I don't like it, I'm calling BS on it, and I stand by that.

And nowhere is this cheekiness more self-evident than the very end of the movie. I was mostly confused throughout most of "The Cabin In The Woods," but at the end I flat out got mad. The fact that the entirety of mankind is doomed to a horrible, grisly fate just because some baked out of his mind, acid dropping, boneheaded conspiracy nut felt like causally dismissing the human race as "having had a good run" was infuriating to me. And what's worse is that it's honestly really out of character for him in the first place, and especially for the Virgin, who just casually goes along with the "let the Dark Gods destroy us all" plan with little argument.

It's like every Linkin Park song ever written manifested itself into a walking, talking, smoking biped and was finally given The History Eraser Button from "Ren & Stimpy." Of course he's going to be selfish and terrible and stupid and push it because nobody understands him, and it's the only way The Man is going to get off his back. THIS little turd is what finally does us in?!

Somehow...I always knew that guy would be the end of me.

Oh but it's ok that humanity is destroyed. As long as you got to make a statement, that's cool. Asshole.

On the plus side, she's really cute.

///////////END MASSIVE SPOILERS\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

THE BOTTOM LINE - Even though I've bitched about "The Cabin In The Woods" a lot, I'm guessing many people might get a charge out of it, and Whedonites will eat this up with a spoon. Personally I wasn't too impressed with it, and found it to be, like most of the things Whedon writes, full of itself and trying way too hard to be way too clever. That being said, I am actually suggesting you watch this movie on the basis of having a crazy story told in a competent manner. Recommended. (Then come back and read the Massive Spoiler section to see why it's stupid.)

ParaNorman (2012)

I pride myself on being pretty good at calling how good a movie is going to be based on the trailers. It doesn't always work out, of course. I'm not always right, but generally I can make a fairly accurate generalization on whether or not I'll like it. When you see as many movies as I do, you do tend to get pretty good at it.

That is, as long as the marketing campaign for a movie isn't deceptive.

You see, Hollywood has a really nasty habit of lying to you. It's true, and I think it's a big problem that is the causation of why so many unique films bomb: They don't know how to market weird stuff.

The problem is that in a trailer, a feature length film has got to be condensed into a fine, chewable paste for the consumption of the lowest common denominator. There can't be any kind of idea that takes more than 5 seconds to convey, be understood, and absorbed by the viewers. That's why trailers are loud, obnoxious, and filled with poo jokes. They also love giving away scares or surprises or even the entire ending of the damn film, all in an effort to say "Look! Look how much stuff happens in this movie! It's got action! It's scary! Look, here's every scare in the entire film!"

The reason they do this, of course, is so that you know the scare is coming, which naturally makes it more effective.

::sigh::

You ever get the feeling it's this guy making all the movie trailers?

Back on point though, this same formula that has been in place ever since they started making previews for movies is a big problem as to why certain films can come off as completely different than what you end up getting. Remember that debacle with "Drive," where that lady actually had the brass to sue the filmmakers because the trailer was too deceptive, and instead of getting a "Fast and The Furious" clone like she wanted, she got an artsy exploitation flick? Well, as stupid as that is, she's got a point. The trailer was insanely deceptive. But at the same time, I have no idea how you'd make a traditional trailer for "Drive" and really convey what you'd be getting.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I could have made a better one, but that's beside the point.

This brings us to "ParaNorman." I was indescribably excited when I first saw the trailer for this film, and saw that it included some of the talent from "Coraline," a movie I considered the best film I saw in 2009. And the trailer for "ParaNorman" started off really well with a creepy atmosphere and gorgeous stop-motion animation, and I was loving it. And then the trailer kept going, and getting worse and worse as it went, because it just looked so...generic. After the awesomeness that was "Coraline," this looked like a huge downgrade. And I was just bummed out by it.

But I finally forced myself to see it, and man, am I glad that I did. In another case where I happily discovered that it was simply a matter of a movie being too good for its trailer, "ParaNorman" ended up surprisingly being one of the best films I've seen this year. Not only was it a gorgeous example of an all but forgotten style of animation, a charming homage to the horror genre, and genuinely funny, but it was reminiscent of kid's movies from back in the day that were objectively good. And while that last one would have made it far worth seeing, it's the other things that just put it over the top to make it something really special.

Have I mentioned it's pretty?

The plot of "ParaNorman" is that Norman is a young boy who can see and talk to ghosts. He sees them all time, and isn't disturbed by it in the least, which is probably why he loves horror films. Of course, due to this he is ostracized at school and is a total outcast. Soon, however, he finds out about a 200 year old curse that he must become the keeper of, to prevent a witch from raising the dead. All of this culminates in a single night of zombies, mobs, and a whole lot of chaos.

I must admit that from the very opening credits, "ParaNorman" had its hooks in me completely. The opening titles are presented in 4:3 ratio, grainy, crappy audio goodness as a parody of grindhouse movies and gory exploitation films begins. As bad acting, cheesy makeup and boom mics in the shot occur in a very funny scene, we pull out to see our main character Norman watching them in his living room with his Grandma. She asks him, "What's happening now, dear?" Norman casually says, "The zombie is eating her brains." She then just as casually replies "Oh. Well that's not very nice."

Then as he goes into the kitchen, and his parents ask him what he's doing. He says he's watching a movie with Grandma. His parents then remind him his Grandma is dead, and that he's got to stop doing that.

Oh. OH! Oh, wow...

What a fantastic and unashamedly dark way to open a film. They don't make kids movies like that anymore. When was the last time a movie marketed towards kids confronted death in such a laid back manner? It was really refreshing to see a movie that was not afraid to go where it is generally taboo to go. Of course, I've never specifically heard if "a corpse licking someone" is considered a social faux-pas, because that happens too, but I'll just assume that it is.

In fact, as the movie goes on, there are more and more shockingly dark things the movie ended up doing which ended up being quite moving and had some great impact. In particular was the scene where the facts of the witch's death hundreds of years ago come to light, and we discover the origin of the curse. There is a reveal in that scene which is genuinely shocking and horribly tragic. I had to pick my jaw out of my lap at that point. Bravo to the film for having guts, because it paid off big time, and really helped hammer home the message of the film, which is "If you hurt those who have hurt you, you end up being just as bad as they are."

Without that great tragedy, that message would have fallen flat, because the pure rage the witch needed to have would have felt disingenuous. And as a result, when the witch is faced with forgiving those who wronged her, the power of that comes through just that much stronger. It's actually quite sad, but also very beautiful.

Also, it's a really intense, creepy, absolutely gorgeous looking scene.

Norman is voiced by one of my favorite young actors, Kodi Smit-McPhee, who is an absolute monster on the screen, and has floored me with his performances twice before, once in "The Road," which he could have gotten an Oscar nomination for, and again in "Let Me In." He reminds me of Max Records a bit, actually, because they are both scary good. And while it was a shame to not see his very expressive face, he along with everyone else in "ParaNorman" did a fantastic job voicing their characters.

Also in the cast were Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Casey Affleck, who added some of the best comedic moments, but I was more excited about Bernard Hill (King Theoden from "Lord of The Rings"), John Goodman, Anna Kendrick and finally Jodelle Ferland, another amazing young actress who was a revelation in Terry Gilliam's superb "Tideland." This is some hardcore talent going on here. And also there was Leslie Mann if you care about that kind of thing.

Comparisons to "Coraline" are inevitable, and although I liked "Coraline" more than "ParaNorman," the amount of pure enjoyment was essentially equal for different reasons. "Coraline" I loved for the story and atmosphere, while "ParaNorman" I loved for the humor and homage to horror films, and they would actually be an amazing double feature with each other, because they both are films that are not afraid to get a bit dark, and threat kids like adults. It's just so wonderful to get a slice of uniqueness in a movie theater when we are all so used to the same recycled crap.

SHOW ME YOUR WAR FACE!!!

I said earlier that "ParaNorman" was a dark film, and yes, it's true. It's rated PG, but it's a hard PG. There are some things in "ParaNorman" that I've heard some people get upset over, and yeah there's some admittedly creepy and surprisingly intense moments to be found, but if I may be so bold, that's exactly why I loved this film. It is a movie made just as much for adults as children, and in the end, that is what will give it staying power. It's the rare film that a parent can enjoy just as much as a kid which should be the definition of a "family film." If it's brain-dead crap like "The Smurfs" or "Mr. Popper's Penguins," and only the kid is enjoying it while the adults just want someone to drill a hole in their head to just make it stop, then it's not a family movie, is it?

But honestly, if your kid can't handle it, maybe you should have done your homework and realized it was a movie about witches and zombies before taking them to see the movie. Read a review of it. Or maybe read the ratings reasons which are made very accessible from numerous sources, including the poster, at the ticket counter, and online. The search would take 4 seconds. In the age of the internet, going into a movie blind like that is so easy to avoid that there's really not much of an excuse.

Meanwhile, this adult is going to sit back and enjoy the hell out of a movie that includes homages to Z-grade Claudio Fragasso schlock, has a "Scooby-Doo" style vibe, actually makes me laugh out loud through the whole thing, and also has a reference to "Manos: The Hands of Fate." That sounds like my kind of movie. And I'm going to enjoy it a lot.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "ParaNorman" is fantastic.  The last movie that I had this kind of reaction to was "The Muppets" last year. Both that film and "ParaNorman" were able to hold me in a constant state of awe, wonder, and perpetual smiles. The story was fun and mysterious, the tone was dark and went to surprisingly dark places, the characters were alive and loveable, the look was gorgeous, and the references just felt like they were tailor-made for me. This is making my Top Ten of 2012, I can almost guarantee. Highly Recommended. Seriously, you need to see it.