Paranormal Activity 3

Rating: 1.5/5

And so the third installment in the increasingly short and unscary Paranormal Activity series inevitably arrives. Seriously, all horror movie concepts get old fast unless they're Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th. Most sequels besides those are rushed out and either nothing like the original (Blair Witch 2) or just a retread of it (every Saw sequel). Plus, movies as original and fun as the first Paranormal Activity don't need sequels. At least not ones this boring.

Dennis (Chris Smith) is worried that his stepdaughters Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) are being haunted by their imaginary friend "Toby." Much to the chagrin of his wife Julie (Lauren Bittner), Dennis sets up cameras all over the house to try and capture evidence. While initially failing to find anything significant, the evidence begins to pile up and Dennis thinks that whatever is in the house is more than just a demon.

I have said this before, but I don't like found footage movies. Besides Blair Witch, they're mostly cheesy, nausea-inducing, and become an not to spend a lot of money on CGI. That is true here because the terrible jump scares rely on the idea that Dennis tapes absolutely everything in his life. Even when the director(s) manage to build a semblance of tension, nothing happens besides camera shaking. Seriously, I actually found myself staring at the ceiling. Even when scary parts do happen, I did not find myself interested.

On the nitpicky side, the movie is supposed to be in 1988, but everyone dresses like a 2010 hipster. The Julie character even has Zooey Deschanel hair and clothes. Also, why the demon ghost thing did no haunting before the cameras were set up is weird. And if Katie and Kristi were haunted as kids, why are they so scared in the first two movies? But I digress. The acting is cheesy, there's too much special effects, people are idiots, and the ending is even more out of left field than The Last Exorcism's.

There's no good reason to see Paranormal Activity 3, but it's not horrible. It is kind of fun at moments and it's competently directed, I guess. The only reason this film exists is to squeeze as much cash from fans as possible, and it succeeded I guess. But who cares? This is my review, and I say it's bad. It's boring, doesn't make any sense, and is NOT scary, proven by the fact that the people my theater started talking to each other and laughing at the scares. Nuff said.

The Skin I Live In

Rating: 4.5/5

I am a big fan of surrealist filmmaking. I love to watch movies that don't necessarily have narratives so much as a general theme. Some of my favorites include Pink Floyd: The Wall, Nobuhiko Obayashi's House, and Eraserhead. I also like foreign films, especially Japanese and Spanish-language ones. This year has been a really good year for foreign film with movies like 13 Assassins and TrollHunter outdoing most of our blockbusters. The Skin I Live In continues this with surrealism by being the best not-Drive movie out in theaters.

In 2012 Spain, brilliant and insane plastic surgeon Robert Ledgard (Antonio Banderas) lives isolated, obsessed with his invention: a skin that resists all damage. He is accompanied only by his servants and Vera (Elena Anaya), a beautiful young woman Robert keeps prisoner as a test subject. Vera is Robert's creation, to the extremity that her skin is his experimental design and her face is that of his late wife. Vera always wears a full-body "skin suit" and is given everything she wants but her freedom. After a break-in at the house, Robert's mental state further unravels and Vera's origins are slowly revealed.

Like most of Almodovar's other films, The Skin I Live In explores the Freudian insanity of human sexuality. One of this film's main themes is the use of sex as a tool for mental control and manipulation rather than love. Throughout most of the film, we know nothing about Vera except that that Robert wants total control of her, which he gets through what is basically rape. Almodovar never shies from the intensity, and does a magnificent job of inducing uneasiness and sometimes revulsion. This is the good kind of disturbing film, the kind where you want to keep watching.

Needless to say The Skin I Live In is strange. Every single scene is constructed and presented in crazy and surreal ways, but it all pays off. The second half of the film brings all the strangeness into an incredible and insane conclusion. Trust me, a lot of it seems pointless and boring, but The Skin I Live In. Almodovar has said that this is his Frankenstein, and it is. A mad doctor seeking perfection in a flawed creature that only desires freedom and independence. I can't talk anymore without spoiling the whole thing, so let me conclude.

The Skin I Live In isn't for everyone. Certain moments are very disturbing, and some may be bored. But if you can stick it out you won't be disappointed. The final act is brilliant, and will definitely leave an impact. Almodovar has given us a modern prometheus that lifts the mad scientist genre to a new level. The Skin I Live In is truly a work of art. So if you want some intelligence in your thriller, go see it.

Martha Marcy May Marlene

Rating: 2/5

Every now and then I review a popular movie negatively. I will never back down about my opinion of films like Kick-Ass or Un Profet, but it isn't like I enjoy arguing with my friends and family. Even though I am very opinionated, I acknowledge the other side of the argument, even if I don't agree with it. But honestly, I do not understand why Martha Marcy May Marlene is so acclaimed.

Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) suddenly shows up at her sister Lucy's (Sara Paulson) door after almost three years of absolutely no contact. Martha is introverted and clearly traumatized, but she refuses to talk about what happened to her. What Lucy fails to pry from Martha is that Martha recently escaped a violent cult lead by Patrick (John Hawkes), a true-blue cult of personality. As Martha's behavior worsens, the audience is brought into the madness of her past.

Martha Marcy May Marlene is a classic example of style over substance. Director Sean Durkin manages to hold very good tension throughout the story with fancy editing and creative writing, but there's nothing to it. The film cannot decide whether it wants to be a character study about cult brainwashing or a thriller about the cult coming after Martha. The flashbacks to Martha's time with Patrick are schizophrenically inserted into the main story, which is annoying because the flashbacks are more interesting. Also, Patrick is a clear Manson analogue, a fact the film tries to hide, and as a result he's just a skinny white guy.

Now, say what you will about her sisters, Elizabeth Olsen can act. Her portrayal of the damaged Martha is extremely realistic and intriguing, as is John Hawkes as Patrick. I'm just frustrated by the film because there's no consequences to any of the events and the notable cast is given nothing to work with. The film is also quite snooty, because every shot and cheesy line of dialogue lets you know how avante-garde and deep the director thinks the movie is.

Martha Marcy May Marlene is like last year's Somewhere, interesting filmmaking and great acting, but no focus. It's clearly made for highbrow newspaper critics, and as a result is mostly unaccessible. All that, and this could've been a short film. The script runs out of ideas very quickly, so by the halfway mark it felt like I saw the same pretentious college thesis at least twice. I didn't despise this movie, but I don't recommend it. It's just a big ball of nothing. Well directed and acted nothing, but nothing.

Real Steel

Rating: 4/5

Oh boy, a boxing movie. A boxing movie based around a toy I had as a kid. Why? Why isn't it just a cartoon? I mean, the whole point is to sell toys, so why spend 200 million? Oh, and it's got a little kid main character, great. Jeez, this is Phantom Menace all over again. God, why does Real Steel exist? Based on the above lines, you'd probably guess that I hated this movie. Surprise, I had a great time.

Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is a drifting schmoozer with a tendency to leap without looking, and used to be a world class heavyweight. Now it's 2020, and 1000 pound robots have replaced people in the ring. After Charlie's ex-wife dies, he's stuck with his young son Max (Dakota Goyo) for the summer. As it turns out, Max is a huge robot boxing fan, and on a rainy night looking for robot parts with Charlie, Max discovers a beat up old training bot named Atom, who has a copycat function. Now our heroes have to find a way to make Atom a real fighter, and how to be father and son.

Real Steel is an example of a really good family film. It has real heart, so we actually care that Atom wins, even though we know he will in the end. I found myself resisting the urge to clap a couple of times in the theater. Real Steel is an almost Spielbergian feel-good movie that I'm surprised wasn't released this summer. And like Warrior, Real Steel is about the relationship between two people, with robots smashing each other to bits as a centerpiece.

Speaking of, the robots look great. Unlike Transformers where the robots are too busy and not immediately distinguishable from one another, Real Steel's robots are simple as well as unique. Honestly, they look more like the Transformers than the Transformers movie. The effects in Real Steel make it easy to tell what's going on and see the detail of the damage that the things do to each other. You feel like you're in the stands.

Real Steel was a pleasant surprise. I thought that I was going to sit through an hour and a half long toy commercial. But I was wrong, because Real Steel is a well made, well written, well acted, well directed movie with some awesome action scenes. This movie is easy to root for, and doesn't try to hide behind pretention or talking down to its audience. Real Steel is just a good old fashioned fun time at the movies. Not Oscar worthy, but worth the ticket price.