Sunday, October 31, 2010

'Paranormal Activity 2' echoes its predecessor with all of the haunted house shivers

When Paranormal Activity was released a year ago, it presented audiences with a unique spin on the haunted-house genre. With its Blair Witch Project approach to the handheld camera style of filming, the movie took its ghost story to the suburbs of California. In most of our minds, that would be the last place for the dead to haunt the living. After the first installment delivered the scares, we weren't expecting a sequel. How could the story continue after the terrifying ending in the first installment? Many of us, myself included, had the fear of the sequel going down the path of the Blair Witch sequel, which tanked after the first became a horror phenomenon. Well, the skeptics have been proven wrong. Paranormal Activity 2 isn't just a worthy continuation of the story. It dishes out the suspense and jolts and takes it to the next level; and does justice to its predecessor.

The story takes place two months before the events of Paranormal Activity, and centers around a family in Carlsbad, Ca., where parents Kristi (Sprague Grayden) and Dan (Brian Boland) arrive home with their newborn son, Hunter. After they return home one night and find that their house has been burglarized, they install six video cameras around the house to catch anything else that might happen. Soon, the family begins to hear loud noises and experiences strange goings-on in their house. Dan and Micah (Micah Sloat, from the first film), think nothing of it. But Kristi and her sister Katie (Katie Featherston, also from the first film), think that something otherworldly is causing the family's trouble. It's not until Kristi's older step-daughter Ali (Molly Ephraim), begins to conduct some research, that the horrors occuring in the house begin to happen more frequently, and starts to assume it has something to do with the family's past.

One of the factors that makes Paranormal Activity 2 that rare, better sequel is that it takes the handheld camera concept and expands upon it. In the first installment, the camera was mostly limited to the bedroom, and captured the activity that only happened there. In this one, the scares are captured through multiple angles of the house: the nursery, the front hallway, the kitchen, the living room, the front of the house, and the pool area. This wider perspective of the house allows the audience to see almost anything that goes on. Any one of these cameras can spot something sinister, and we wait with baited breath to see where it will happen, and what will happen. The surprises never become stale. And of course, there's also a handheld camera, mostly used by Ali. When she wakes up in terror and investigates to see what went bump in the night, she needs some way to document it, doesn't she?

The film doesn't take the typical horror convention of having the ghouls come out only when the sun goes down. In the sequel, the frights threaten the family in both night and day. Some of the movie's best scares happen during the day, and this shows that the family is as vulnerable while awake as they are when they're asleep. The baby and the family dog are also put to clever use. It's common knowledge that in many other horror stories, infants and pets can see what many cannot. What's unsettling is that when they see a ghost or a demon, only they can see it, not the audience or the other characters; and this provides another dimension to the idea that what we can't see can scare us just as well as anything else. Sudden noises and total silence are enough to give you a feeling of anxiety as you wait for the next big shock.

A small problem with Paranormal Activity 2 is that it follows most of the same format as the original; but with the few tweaks given to the sequel, it's almost never an issue. And although it takes a while for the frights to pick-up, the second half will leave you shaking. I won't give anything away, but the ending does leave the door ajar for another installment. The writers silenced our doubts about the sequel by giving it a clever approach; but it's difficult to imagine the story being stretched any further into a third film. There isn't any need to spoil what's already scary.

Final grade: B+

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Don't bother hooking this 'Catfish'

To alliviate confusion, this is the other Facebook movie. This isn't the new David Fincher film that chronicles the origin of a communication sensation. It's a documentary drama that captures the making of a romantic relationship through the internet, and the lies that can be told when not interacting face-to-face. Catfish tackles an interesting premise that's relevant to the situation of today's countless social networking interactions. The story, camera techniques, and approach to the suspense genre make for what seems to be a small, yet promising thriller; but doesn't deliver as a whole.

Yaniv Schulman is a young photographer living in New York City with his filmmaker brother, Ariel, and his friend, Henry Joost, who is also a filmmaker. One day, Nev receives an e-mail from an eight-year-old named Abby, who lives in Michigan. She has seen one of Nev's photos in a newspaper, and asks for permission to create a painting from it. After getting his approval, she paints the portrait, and mails it to him. Astounded by how professional it looks, Nev doesn't know whether Abby is a fraud or a child prodigy. Soon, he decides to call the family for the first time, and starts talking to Abby's alluring 19-year-old sister, Meghan. After some romantic exchanges between the two digital lovers, Nev, Ariel, and Henry decide to make a surprise trip to Michigan to finally meet the family. However, once they make it to their destination, Meghan's family isn't at all what they appeared to be.

The problem with Catfish is that it ends as you would think. There could have been a tweak to what was expected, but no. It concludes with a disappointing emotional twist, rather than a shocking psychological twist. The acting from everyone in the cast fits in suitably with the plot material; but it can't save the movie from the obvious direction in which it's going. All of the suspense evaporates halfway through the film when we finally see the family. At that point, Catfish turns into a completely different movie. It goes from a documentary mystery, to a documentary about the family. Catfish should have been one of those films that keeps you in its grip until the end. It holds you, but as the story progresses, it slowly releases you.

Final grade: C

Monday, October 11, 2010

David Fincher brings Facebook from the computer screen to the silver screen

At first, news about a film based on the creation of a website would be something to scoff at. Audiences would sarcastically think to themselves, “What will they think of next?” It would lead us to believe that screenwriters have officially run out of fresh ideas for stories. Not true. What director David Fincher presents to us is the opposite in his new film, The Social Network. After teaming up with talented scribe Aaron Sorkin, writer of the television series, The West Wing, the two have brought to life the story of friendship and betrayal in the rise of one of our biggest communication advancements.

It is Fall 2003 in the prestigious land of academia known as Harvard University, and student Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is aching to boost his status on campus and become known for something. After a harsh break-up with his girlfriend, Erica Albright (Rooney Mara), he gets drunk and goes on a techno-frenzy. He creates a website called "FaceMash," where male students rate girls based on their looks, with the help his friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). After realizing his talent with computer-programming, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer), two very wealthy students, recruit Mark to assist them with launching their new website, Harvard Connection, which is exclusively for Harvard students. After being accused of "stealing" their idea, Mark is soon faced with threats of lawsuit and the loss of his only friends. All the while, he is being encouraged by Napster founder, Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), to expand Facebook into a global network.

Eisenberg nails the jerk attitude of Mark Zuckerberg. He’s not a person you would associate with; but he portrays Zuckerberg in such a way that first makes you root for him, then hate him, then at the last minute, feel sorry for the situation he’s sunk into. Newcomer Andrew Garfield is a star-in-the-making. He plays Eduardo as a calm and quiet cohort to Mark; but when he performs his scenes when a rise in emotion is needed, we see what he can really do as an actor. And Justin Timberlake brings his famous all-star charm to his role as Sean Parker. Timberlake portrays Parker as the embodiment of business-world temptation without flaw. We know he can sing. We know he always delivers the funny on Saturday Night Live whenever he hosts. But this performance officially makes him a true actor.

Fincher has the noticeable ability to make even the minor characters memorable, as seen two years ago in his last film, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. He makes sure that every performance counts, and gets all the feelings out of each person; even if they only have a few scenes. He achieves this with characters such as Erica Albright, and Christy Lee (Brenda Song), the latter of who quickly becomes a “facebook groupie.” He gets his cast to do the best possible job they can, and it shows.

Sorkin adapts his screenplay from the book, The Accidental Billionaires, by Ben Mezrich. Sorkin’s script is one of the most well-written to come along in a while. Although it’s mostly drama, it’s also peppered with some humor. Between the anger and jealousy spouted by the characters, there are some very memorable quotes. One of the best is said by Timberlake after a one-night-stand. The characters deliver the sharp-as-a-tack dialogue at great speed, especially in the opening scene shared by Eisenberg and Mara. The rapid exchange of words draws us in, wanting us to listen to them as we find out what makes them tick.

David Fincher cuts the story back and forth between Facebook’s creation and the lawsuits over its rightful ownership. This technique highlights the theme of best friends who become bitter rivals. He goes from the wild and crazy life of college, to the ambitious shark tank of the business world. He presents these two worlds in such a way that gets the viewer invested in the plot; because in the film, college isn’t just about college, and business isn’t just about business.

If Sorkin and Fincher can make a film about a website so enthralling, the sky’s the limit for these two talents. The film is one of the best achievements in story and character this year. The cast brings such kinetic energy to the film and eagerly feeds off of the dialogue like starving lions. The story not only shows how Facebook became a communication revolution; but also a cultural one. In short, The Social Network is a film to be celebrated.

Final grade: A