Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

There are few words adequate to sum up my feelings towards the "Paranormal Activity" series. But I can try! Here are some choice ones to get the ball rolling: "boring" and "stupid." Ok so maybe there are enough words.

I'm guessing that I've already lost the attention and respect of anybody reading this who is a fan of these movies, and that's fine. The fact remains that there is not a single thing about this series that works for me. It's terrible. It's slow and boring as all holy hell, and there is not one thing in this ENTIRE TRILOGY that functions as a proper scare. And I don't understand how anybody could think otherwise. Are people so easy to scare? Because I can bang pots around, too. Where's my movie deal with sequel opportunities?

Here's the setup: It's going to be security footage from a 7-11. It's going to show the hot dog warming rack. Of course, it will only show the warming rack for 10 seconds, since it's going to have to cycle through the other cameras, too. So for 10 seconds we'll get the front door with nobody coming in, since it's the middle of the night. Then for 10 seconds we'll see the clerk standing behind the counter, reading a Maxim and scratching his ass. Nothing happening there either. Then it's back to the hot dogs. After about 15 minutes of this establishing of normalcy, we'll start with the scares! Every few minutes...the mustard will be slightly neeeeearer to the hooooooot doooooogs! OooooooOoOOOooo!!! They're gonna get eeeeeeeaten!!! With muuuuuuustaaaaard!!!

Of course, this inching forward of the ghostly mustard will only happen about every 10 minutes or so. Most of the time, it'll just be the clerk doing nothing, but every once in a while he'll look over his shoulder and very unnecessarily slowly walk around the store before going back behind the counter. But see, that's the beauty of it, by showing NOTHING for 90% of the movie, we establish that when something DOES happen, it's super-duper important and scary and terrifying and oh-my-gosh-I-just-peed-my-pants.

"Hey Dante, you think ghosts are naked?"

 The third film is actually a prequel that focuses on when the sisters were little girls in the late 80's. Now, if you remember from the first film, there was mentioning of weird things happening to the sisters back when they were young. Now we finally get to uncover more of the mystery of the demon that has plagued this family, and witness the horror that has haunted the sisters for years.

In theory, that is.

*SPOILERS BELOW*

In reality, nothing about this movie makes any sense to me. The girls, Katie and Kristi, are witnessing all this crazy crap going on and being scared out of their minds. I remember them saying that they had mentally blocked a lot of that stuff out, that they didn't have clear memories of it, but that starts to not fly because people are dying here. This is stuff that would get investigated by the authorities. Not only that, it would appear (and I'm assuming this is the case) at the end that their mother was killed.

Now I don't remember what they said about their mother in the earlier films, but I think her HORRIBLE GRISLY DEATH would not be something you just conveniently forgot about. What about foster care? Were did they go after the mom died? I don't recall them saying they grew up in foster homes. What about a police investigation? I'm not saying they had to remember all of it, but there must be a file on these sisters somewhere. And it's never been brought up? A double homicide of the girl's mother and her boyfriend? Not to mention the fact that it's all on tape.

That brings up the absolute biggest canyon of a plot hole in the film: the tapes. They had a box of tapes that proves the existence of supernatural events, something that could rip open the very fabric of our perception of reality, and it's sitting in a box in their basement. Are you seriously telling me that nobody ever looked at these? Someone like the police? In nearly 15 years of having the tapes, nobody ever said ONE TIME:

"Hey, these tapes owned and shot by Dennis in a box full of tapes by Dennis are dated right when Dennis was killed! Oh, Julie died then too, didn't she? These might offer insight into what happened to them! Never mind the logistics of how the tapes managed to get into this box considering he died, because the possibility of any kind of nefarious goings on would imply that anyone having to do with Dennis' death most likely wouldn't nicely package them up and give them back to the remaining family, they would just destroy them to get rid of the evidence, otherwise that would just be stupid. LET'S GIVE THESE TAPES A LOOK!"

Do you not see the glaring problem here? The insane cult just gave the tapes back? I can buy brainwashing the sisters, but the point is defeated if they just gave the sisters a box of tapes detailing everything that happened. What about Dennis' friend who witnessed these events firsthand, and also shot some of the more insane moments? Did he just not say anything to anyone? He didn't go to the authorities and say "There's crazy stuff that we taped that you need to see which directly relates to my friends death, also I'm going to be crazy famous because I helped prove the existence of demons" and point to the box of tapes that were STILL THERE AFTER THE CULT GAVE THEM BACK?!

To be fair, the movie begins with a flash-forward to the second film, where we see the box of tapes has been stolen from their basement...about 15 years after the fact. But why now? Why steal the tapes back after such an absurdly long time? If you wanted to keep a secret why did you let them have the tapes in the first place!? Ugh. These movies are so stupid.

*END SPOILERS*

I suppose at some point I should talk about the film itself, but what's the point? You either love these movies or you don't. It's as simple as that. And there's nothing in the third film which isn't in the first two. It's the same damn movie over and over again. If there is a difference it's probably that the hauntings are more violent than in the other films, which doesn't make much sense either, since that means the demon has been getting progressively more lazy over time since the first film is still the last one chronologically.

The demon does this at one point. I am not joking. Scary? No. Hysterical? Oh you're damn right.

I know part of the "horror" is that demon is just screwing with these people, but I don't understand how making a door open or a pan drop constitutes as an evil entity out to torment and enslave. If I was an evil demon, I'd be evil! I'd cause havoc all the time! I wouldn't lay dormant for years and just make scuffling sounds at night and make light bulbs pop. It's like Professor Chaos switching soup orders. It's not diabolical. And how bored must this thing be to only do that for years? Maybe if the demon had a hobby it could find more constructive things to do with its time instead of making a liiiiiiiight swing baaaack and fooorth when noooobody is looooooking at it WooOOooOoOO!!!!

I hate this series so damn much.

THE BOTTOM LINE - If you like these movies, it's probably the best one of the three, since there is more going on with the "scares." Me personally? I've gotten more fright out of smelling the milk to see if it's gone bad. And milk-smelling was more entertaining.

The Devil Inside

It's "Paranormal Activity" meets the "The Rite."

There. Can I go home now?

OK, so there is more to "The Devil Inside" than that (not much more, granted) but when you cut to the chase of it, that's the general idea. The film is in the same vein as the now wildly popular genre, being that of the "OH-EM-GEE-THIS-IS-TOTALLY-A-DOCUMENTARY" style. I think that this documentary style can work very well when utilized properly. I thought "The Blair Witch Project" was brilliant, and "District 9" and "Cloverfield" were quite good, as was "The Last Exorcism." Of course I hate the "Paranormal Activity" series, so I guess my tastes for this genre aren't the most consistent. I guess it all boils down to subject matter and execution, and the other films did well on both counts. "Paranormal Activity" is an interesting subject which was horribly executed.

Which brings us to "The Devil Inside." There really isn't too much to explain with this one, because movies about possession are so tired and derivative that you could pretty much sing along in the theater. Yes, you know the priest isn't going to "play by the rules" of the stuffy hypocritical church. You know that doctors are going to mark the possessed person down as crazy even if she starts growing devil horns and breathing fire. You know the demon is going to turn one of the good guys. You know that demon is going to somehow escape being exorcised with a SHOCKING TWIST ENDING. It's like a montage of every other possession movie you've ever seen, only done with a lower budget and worse camerawork.

Oh yes, the camerawork. It's handheld, which should be obvious because of the style, but I have a particular bone to grind with "The Devil Inside" because the character making the "documentary" is a terrible filmmaker. Let's put aside the fact that he is a one man production, which even for a low-budget documentary is ridiculous. My big complaint comes from the fact that it's done in that really obnoxious faux-realistic way where the camera will go out of focus all the frigging time, the shot composition and framing is crap, including way too close close-ups, and the camera is bouncing around like the dude mainlines espresso. The worst thing about that though is the camera's habit of really quickly zooming in on something, just a little bit, going out of focus, and then refocusing before zooming really quickly back out. They do this all the time. It's nauseating and so ridiculously amateur that no filmmaker of any reasonable quality would do it.

The bottom line is that this guy eats it as a cameraman. I just wanted to grab that little donut puncher by the nostrils and tell him to HIRE SOMEONE ELSE TO WORK THE CAMERA BEFORE OUR EYES EXPLODE.

The most elaborate gang sign ever invented.

At this point however, it must be asked if the film accomplishes what it set out to do. I have to admit there were times when it did get uncomfortable to watch, and not because of the camerawork. There are scenes in "The Devil Inside" which are admittedly pretty disturbing. In particular was a scene with an incredible contortionist who must not have a spine or something for all the grotesque positions she got in. Props to her. More than a couple times I found myself squirming in my seat a little bit, which is a good thing for a horror movie. But the other thing that horror movies should do is scare you, right? Was "The Devil Inside" scary? No, it wasn't. Not at all. I think a lot of this was just because it has been played out so much. It's hard to be scary when you know exactly what's going to happen.

Something I did have mixed feelings on however, was the thought that a films limitations in terms of style can have a positive impact on the intensity of the film. For instance, a really big part of "The Devil Inside" is eyes, specifically the dilation of the pupils. They use that a lot, including really uncomfortable extreme closeups of eyes with what they call "Pupil Cam." I wish I were making that up. The theory they have is that when a demon shows itself the person's pupils will dilate to an extreme degree.

Honestly, the "Pupil Cam 3000" never really shows the dilation happening, from what I could tell. For some bizarre reason they cut away from that whenever someone freaks out, which would have been an ideal time to show us what they were talking about. Instead, when someone in the movie becomes possessed, we see it from a further distance away with the handheld camera, and at that range and with that quality of picture, it's really hard to tell. It's more of a hint, really. I did think to myself at a couple points that their eyes looked a bit more black than normal, but that could have just been my imagination. Or it could have been them acting really really creepy that gave them away.

The point of this is that there are several moments in the movie where pupil dilation is a big deal. It's basically the crux of the whole climax. It's supposed to function as a dramatic beat and a terrifying moment where you realize that another one of the characters is possessed, and bad things are about to happen. But how can that function as a horrifying moment when you can't even see it? Or is that the point? Is it there to begin with, or are you just projecting it? Are they going for a "you don't see the shark" mentality? Is the fact that you can't really see supposed to back up the validity of the thought that these are real events?

Or did they just overestimate how well the effect showed up on the screen? You make the call.

Oh, and the ending sucks, too. Since when did "no resolution" become "everything is resolved?"

"You think you have won! What is light without dark? What are you without me? I am a part of you all. You can never defeat me! What? I totally won? Oh. Never mind then."

BOTTOM LINE - If you hate this kind of movie, it's no different from the rest of them. You'll hate it. If you like this kind of movie, just watch "The Last Exorcism." It's far superior to this crap.

Apollo 18

I have been waiting to see this movie for a long time. It was supposed to come out in October of 2010, then it got shoved to early 2011, then fall of 2011. And then, of course, when it finally came out, it only played for like 2 weeks, and I missed the last screening of it. Literally. I had no idea it wasn't going to be showing the next day, and I skipped out on it because I was waiting to see it with someone who flaked out on me anyways. Surprise. And when it finally comes out in December, my store doesn't get it because we're closing. Freaking awesome. So when all is said and done, I have been waiting about a year and a half to see this freaking thing. It better be worth it, right?

Well, obviously the anticipation was high for me, despite the fact that I had heard nothing but really bad things about "Apollo 18." Everyone just tore this movie apart, but I stayed optimistic, generally because most of the people tearing it apart also hated "The Blair Witch Project," which I personally found to be brilliant. I thought it looked like something I could dig, since I think the "found footage" genre can be very effective. Oddly enough, I intensely dislike the "Paranormal Activity" series. Go figure.

"Apollo 18" is the story of the TOP SECRET MISSION of our last time going to the moon. For those of you who don't know your history, there were only 17 Apollo moon missions. There we are told why we never went back to the moon: Moon Crabs. Oh, I'm for real. You don't want to mess with the Moon Crabs. They will give you such a pinch.

"Looking for lifeforms on the moon? Why not Zoidberg?"

When you boil it down, "Apollo 18" really is "Blair Witch Project" on the moon, and that right there is going to be enough to make or break it for you. If you hated "Blair Witch Project," I can't see this working for you. If you liked "Blair Witch Project," well, I'm not going to say you're going to like it, but you've got a good head start.

Me personally? It was...OK. Not the masterpiece I wanted, but what I got was passable. The saving grace really comes from a handful of scenes and shots that are quite unnerving. These include the exploration of a pitch-black crater using a camera flash that works like the world's slowest strobe light (in fact they do this twice), a desperate run to safety that makes you feel out of breath watching it, and some very creepy discoveries on the moon involving stuff that just shouldn't be there.

One thing I wasn't really expecting was the quasi-"X-Files" conspiracy vibe the movie gives out at times, which gets a little silly when you think about it. (*Slight spoiler warning*) Is it ridiculous that the D.O.D. would send astronauts that they've trained for years and spent millions of dollars on up there to die as some kind of guinea pigs? Yeah, it is. But then again, who else are they going to send? Oil drillers? That would just be stupid.

I felt the conspiracy angle was a little ham-fisted, but it really didn't ruin the movie for me. It was more of a "Oh. I guess I should have seen that coming. Of course, why not?" moment. But by the end, the tension has been ratcheted up so much that it really didn't matter. I just wanted to see the dudes get home, and "Apollo 18" did a great job making you feel for the astronauts.

The last 15 minutes of the movie is when it really is at its most alive, as one would expect from the climax of a film. And although the ending will probably tick a lot of people off (the endings of these kinds of movie typically do), it really couldn't have finished any other way and maintained its tone. Because, come on. You knew this wasn't going to end well.

BOTTOM LINE - If you like the "found footage" genre at all, this will probably intrigue you, but it probably won't blow your mind. If you hate this genre, you won't see it anyway.