FILM REVIEWS: Paranoia

After sitting through a movie like Paranoia, you start to wonder why movies like this are even made. Clearly not to win Oscars or make money, it seems-- This thing flopped in every conceivable definition of the word. After following that train of thought a bit, you also start to wonder how in the world Harrison Ford and Gary Oldman got involved in a thing like this, and why if the director could get two big-name actors like them, he had to settle for someone like Liam Hemsworth in the lead. In short, the pointlessness of the movie’s creation transfers over to the movie itself. This is probably one of the stupidest pieces of crap ever made, an enormous heaping of cinematic drivel that should leave film buffs angry and regular moviegoers confused.

Paranoia stars Thor’s little brother as Generic Young Twentysomething Handsome Trying-To-Make-It-Big-In-The-City Guy, who is (as his name suggests) trying to gain some traction to be successful in the corporate world. Right off the bat, this movie was destined to be awful-- It starts with a five-minute monologue from Hemsworth about life in corporate America. I don’t know if the writers thought they were exposing some revelatory truths here, but every line spoken in this movie is a cliche. “Used to be, if you did well in high school, you’d get into the right college... get a degree... blah blah blah blah blah opportunity blah blah success.” It is boring, poorly-written, incredibly bland trite, and it doesn’t help that it’s spoken by one of the least accomplished actors in all of Hollywood. No joking here, Liam Hemsworth absolutely cannot act to save his life. He is 2013’s Taylor Lautner or Sam Worthington-- an arrogant carbon-copy of every young and shitty actor ever. His delivery is consistently flat and toneless, and you don’t root for him at all through the course of the movie, because his character is such an unlikable fuckhead.

Then there’s the plot, which pits Gary Oldman and Harrison Ford against each other in a world of corporate espionage and technology. Does it sound interesting? Yes! Is it? Oh good holy Mary mother of fucking Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick no. In fact, Ford and Oldman don’t even meet face-to-face until halfway through the movie, and even then it’s a throwaway scene. So what else is the audience watching this movie for? Hemsworth? Please. Even when these two distinguished actors have screen time separately, they totally phone in their performances, not bothering to actually make the drivel they’re spouting sound good. And honestly, I can’t blame them, because that’s a nearly impossible task.

This is the first movie I’ve ever seen where every single line of dialogue spoken is either a cliche or makes no sense. Well, besides The Room. Half the time, the characters talk like robots filling up space and providing exposition when necessary. Oldman’s assistant is the most objectionable on this front, as her only purpose is to try and help the audience give a shit about the asinine plot. She does this by babbling techo mumbo-jumbo and explaining to us why the characters are the way they are. This is like having a character in Citizen Kane who turns to the audience and says “Just so you know, Rosebud is the sled. It was a symbol of Kane’s childhood that he never recovered. Therefore, he remained a broken man even though he was surrounded by all the money in the world.” Why would you have a character whose sole purpose is to describe other characters, especially when you can reveal their secrets and developments through far more intuitive ways? Aaargh... why...

Then the other half of the dialogue is taken up by the derpiest cliches of all time, none of which actually make sense within the context of the movie. In one scene, Hemsworth is confessing to a friend of his that all the horrible things happening have been his fault, and that his corporate espionage is the cause of all their troubles. He says “I’m the reason for all of this.” Then, without questioning that or asking for a further explanation, his friend says “The real question is... what are we going to do about it?” What? In what universe does this reaction make sense? This is one of many, many, MANY eye-roll-inducing scenes in this war crime of a movie. Some of the dialogue is so bad, it physically hurt me to listen to it.

I’m not going to spend any more time reviewing this shit, so Final Score for Paranoia? Yeah, you guessed it, 1/10. It doesn’t quite hit the point of no return at 0/10, mainly because it’s just aggressively bland and just passively bad. There’s no substance whatsoever here, but I honestly am way too indifferent to it to actually loathe it with a passion. Yeah, it’s bad, but it’s actually worth watching just to laugh at how much of a derp Liam Hemsworth looks like when he runs. But altogether, this is one of the worst movies of the year, not to mention one of the most boring. And that’s a deadly combination.

FILM REVIEWS: Now You See Me

Do you think that hypnotism is possible by merely snapping your fingers in someone’s face? Will you swallow a plot that calls for a man to hire a team of magicians to rob banks to avenge his father’s death? Can you put up with the most halfheartedly written dialogue know to man, coupled with some of the most half-assed performances ever put to film? If so, Now You See Me is the movie for you! It’s been a while since I’ve been this disappointed by a movie, but this enormous piece of shit delivers with bland characters and an overly convoluted plot that I really couldn’t care less about. God, this movie is ass.

Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Dave Franco, and Isla Fisher as four magicians who are given an express set of instructions to organize a series of three robberies over the course of a long career. Even though they have no idea who gave them the instructions, they proceed accordingly... because fuck logic. In their first performance, they teleport a French guy to a vault, where he siphons all the money back to the audience. But of course this isn’t possible, so cue Morgan Freeman coming in to do what he does best: WORDY EXPOSITION! He debases their magic, and then tells the police that they robbed the bank long beforehand to play the trick. So why weren’t they arrested or charged with anything? Eisenberg tells the police that if they arrest him, they will be admitting that magic exists. But how in the fuck does that make sense? His magic had already been proven false! The facts show that he robbed the bank! The proof, as they say, is in the motherfucking pudding!

But for whatever reason (Plotline), the lame police agent played by Mark Ruffalo lets the four of them go, and they continue to rob people using ‘magic.’ All of their actual robberies are debased by Freeman, but their stunts aren’t, and those are usually the most interesting thing in the movie. How does Isla Fisher float in a bubble across the audience? How is Woody Harrelson able to hypnotize people merely by snapping his fingers? How is it remotely feasible to pick one random guy, follow him around while planting subliminal messages in his head, and ensure that he ends up seeing your magic show on a certain day at a certain time? None of this makes an ounce of sense, but the movie doesn’t even try to explain why any of these things are happening. At the end of the day, the film owes most of its magic to the power of confusing camerawork to keep the audience distracted, not anything to do with the actual plot. In this sense, the movie is even trickier than the characters it’s about. Which is not necessarily a good thing.

The characters aren’t even remotely believable, and their dialogue is consistently stilted and dull. The only thing they have going for them are their magic tricks, but when the magic is so clearly CGI, and is not even remotely possible, the audience couldn’t care less. None of the characters interact in realistic ways, and when they do they are so stereotyped it hurts. Morgan Freeman is always the wise old man, Michael Caine is a rich British guy, and Mark Ruffalo’s police chief doesn’t know what the fuck is going on (just like every other policeman in every movie ever).

But Now You See Me’s biggest insult is its final plot twist (which I’m going to spoil for you so that you don’t have to actually sit through the movie). In the end, it turns out that Mark Ruffalo was using the four magicians to set up Morgan Freeman all along, in order to avenge his father... or something. The movie insults the audience’s intelligence on astronomical levels here. It expects us to buy that Ruffalo could possibly have conjured up this ridiculously convoluted plot to leave Freeman in ruins and make off with a buttload of cash. But not once does his character ever allude to that. I’m fine with plot twists, but there isn’t a single moment throughout the entire movie that makes you think that his character’s twist is remotely plausible. It should have at least been hinted at so that the audience’s reaction would have been “WOW” instead of “Yeah, thaaaat’s fucking ridiculous.”

Final Score for Now You See Me: 3/10 stars. The effects are cool and the story is fine, but this is really one of the year’s guiltiest pleasures. None of this movie makes even the slightest amount of sense, and if you start to think for even a second about the proceedings, you will realize how lame it all is. None of the characters act the way they should, and every part of their conversations are only for serving the plot. An associate of mine, Jay Cutler, recently pointed out that small talk is one of the things that makes movie dialogue great. But there is absolutely no small talk in Now You See Me; literally every single line someone speaks is used later for the service of unbelievably asinine plot twists. For instance, if you bother looking for a second and aren’t distracted by the pretty lights, you’ll notice that the last performance that the four magicians give is about five minutes long. It’s all concocted, it’s all bland, and the movie feels like it came off an assembly line. And at the end of the day... it did.

HORROR WEEK: The Blair Witch Project

If running around in the woods for an hour and a half is scary to you, you’re scared pretty easily. The Blair Witch Project, the movie that started the found-footage horror genre, may be inventive, but there’s something that’s inherently not frightening about a pile of rocks sitting in the woods. While movies like Paranormal Activity were able to bend the audience’s perception of reality enough to be truly frightening, it’s very difficult to watch The Blair Witch Project and shake the feeling that it’s just a movie about three idiots with a $400 camera who went camping. And yes... it’s as bad as it sounds.

Starring three nameless actors, The Blair Witch Project is the film that supposedly revolutionized the horror genre with low-budget effects and a documentary format. I have a lot of respect for movies that start trends, but the thing is, the trend that this movie started sucks. Found-footage has been done to the death, and nowadays films of its ilk have enormous budgets and insane special effects, making it impossible for this generic original to compete. I admire it for not resorting to jump scares, and attempting to keep up the suspense consistently for 90 minutes, but the result isn’t scary-- it’s terribly boring.

Not much can be said about a movie like this, because there isn’t much to it. It’s just an overload of shaky cam, bad dialogue, and classic horror movie decision-making. “Hey, I have a map. Let’s throw it in the river! What a hilarious prank!” People don’t act like this in real life, so why should they in movies? I don’t ask that all movies directly parallel reality, but people should still act like people, and they should still make decisions based on logic and rationale. And sorry if I can’t imagine a situation where this happens, but I don’t see someone charging out into the woods, dragging along a couple of unqualified morons, to film a documentary on something as nonsensical as the “Blair Witch.”

I watched this movie at 10:00 at night, in the quiet of my room, and I wasn’t remotely frightened by a moment of it. If you’re willing to allow yourself to be immersed in the ludicrous world the movie creates, then I’m sure you’ll be scared. But for the viewers who actually have taste, and don’t find close-up shots of someone’s runny nose to be scary, this is not a good movie by any standard. The most frightening moment comes when the characters stumble across a grouping of human-shaped effigies hanging from the trees. But even here, I couldn’t shake this lingering thought in the back of my mind: “Wow, the budget on this movie must have been ten bucks.” Not to say that good movies require big budgets-- far from it. But to have a certain level of quality, a certain amount of money must be invested in the final product. And here, it felt like they grabbed three people off the street and said “Do you want to be in a movie?” Then they got some interns to set up rocks in little piles, and WHAMMO! A horror classic!

No effort was put into this movie, so I’m not going to put any more into my review. Final Score for The Blair Bitch Project: 2/10 stars (official anus-of-cinema seal of approval)! The acting is bad, the characters are dumb, and there’s not one moment where you are emotionally invested in the movie whatsoever. The iconic line in this movie, “I’m so scared,” is monumentally misguided. Sure, you’re scared! Show us instead of tell us! Anyway, this movie isn’t watchable even as a timewaster. If you want to get the same effect, take a cheap camera from Best Buy, then flush it down the toilet. After a week, go down to the sewers, recover its memory chip, and watch the video it took. It’ll probably be better than this piece of shit.

HORROR WEEK: Final Destination

Ah, yet another fine premise hindered by horrible execution. Final Destination, the film that spawned four subsequent installments, may be dumb, but it’s dumb fun nonetheless. Sure, it’s basically no different than thousands of other young adult movies about kids who have amazing powers (Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, etc), but Destination seems to understand why movies like those are so bad, and even play off of them a little. It’s not a spoof, but parts of it are so ludicrous and hilariously over-the-top, it’s hard not to laugh.

Final Destination stars a plethora of child actors (most of whom will be recognized by any X-Files aficionados out there) as a group of French class students. While en route to Paris for a school trip, a student named Alex has a prophetic vision that the plane they are on will crash, causing him to leap out of his seat, cause a panic, and get off the plane with a few of his classmates. Of course, as it always is in these kinds of movies, Alex is right and the plane blows up on takeoff.

This is an epic premise, and gives way to an astoundingly awesome series of events that pits Alex against the FBI, who clearly think the circumstances are a bit suspect. It’s got a little bit of that ‘question authority’ factor that I (as a teenager) enjoy so much in movies. But a lot of the acting is pretty bad, especially from the main characters. It’s not like you’re supposed to really take the movie seriously, but most of the characters overemphasize their dialogue, making the whole thing feel more like an MTV video than a serious horror movie (which it isn’t). This is pretty much the horror equivalent of a Michael Bay movie: Character development is virtually nonexistent, but for clean and unbridled craziness, this is what you want.

The deaths themselves are amazingly ludicrous, to the point of outright slapstick humor. I never thought I’d laugh out loud at a woman being impaled by a set of kitchen knives, but I definitely did here. Sadly, this was not really the filmmaker’s intent, because the movie is SUPPOSED to be truly scary. However, it’s hard to be terrified when you’re watching a guy slip on toilet water, fall into his shower, and get strangled by the shower curtain. Not to mention a girl who walks into the street, says “You can all drop dead,” and then gets hit by a bus. Shock humor is fun, and this movie utilizes it to no end. By the time the final sequence rolls around (which involves a clothesline and lightning), you’re watching a movie so gleefully ridiculous you can’t help but enjoy it.

But at its core, Final Destination is really nothing more than an empty, fluffy film that just so happens to have an intriguing premise. There’s not much else that sets it apart from the pack, no memorable scenes, bad acting, bad dialogue, and some pretty dumb sequences. It pains me to say this, because I actually had fun watching it, but it’s nothing more than nonsensical gore and asinine plot points. Its central premise relies on the characters finding messages that death itself sends them, but why does death have a plan OR pattern, and if it did, why would it share it with them? Cheating death is one thing. Cheating the audience, though... that’s the anus of cinema.

Final Score for Final Destination: 4/10 stars. Much like Kick-Ass, Pacific Rim, and Event Horizon, this is an immensely entertaining movie to watch, and the perfect bargain-buy horror movie rental for a slow weekend. Sure, it’s filled with obnoxious characters and confusing death sequences, but that’s what movies like this are made for: Hilarious in-home commentary. It’s by no means a good movie. However, for outside-the-box concepts and chaotic gore, there’s no better place to turn to.

HORROR WEEK: Halloween

After being told for years that Halloween is the best effort the slasher genre has ever made... I unfortunately am forced to agree. Horror is a fascinating genre, because when it’s successful, it’s good, but when it fails, it’s (no pun intended) horrible. Halloween is at the peak of the slasher subgenre of horror, which features scantily-clad teenagers running around and falling down while being chased by a nutjob in a mask wielding a machete. As one could imagine, that gets old after a while. I really don’t see why someone would put themselves through watching something like this. Either the appeal is just lost on me, or I am the only sane man on the face of the Earth. Maybe a little bit of both.

Halloween is the first installment in the long-running and lucrative Halloween franchise, because (as it always is with horror movies) one wasn’t enough. At the beginning of the movie, a young boy named Michael Meyers (who later went on to star in Austin Powers and Wayne’s World) inexplicably murders his sister and is sent to a mental institution, where he is examined thoroughly by a psychiatrist (Donald Pleasence). After years in isolation, Michael escapes, drives away, and begins to wreak havoc in his hometown once more.

It’s an okay premise, but it’s completely undone by a myriad of horror movie cliches and tropes. In every horror movie, the exact same things happen, and Halloween is no exception. Really, you could chart this and every subsequent horror film quite easily. It starts off with 40 minutes of dialogue and ‘character development’, which mostly consists of bad teenager writing that smacks of a 40-year-old trying to write for young people. It then starts with the lamest of horror scares: The sudden disappearance, where the main character looks out the window, sees the killer, does a double-take, and he’s gone. Of course, this is never creepy enough for her to freak out. She just goes right to sleep.

And then the killing begins... first to go is the topless girl. Then, she and her boyfriend are strung up in various disgusting ways by the killer, just so that whoever stumbles upon them will have a fit. Then, the victim spends a good amount of time crying in the corner, giving the killer a chance to sneak up on her. But fortunately for her, he only has bad aim when he’s trying to kill the main character! I could go on, but it would just be more of the same (much like slashers are). People make dumb decisions like hiding under the bed instead of running away, and then when they DO run, they always fall down. It’s repetitive, boring, and I’m fucking sick of it. There’s only so many times you can watch someone die in a disgusting way before you finally say “You know what? I think I’ll watch something with a brain.”

Final Score for Halloween: 5/10 stars. It gets points for its classic status, and for the fact that it started the entire slasher genre, but I can’t really respect it for starting a genre that I hate. It’s cliched, silly, and (worst of all) it’s not even remotely scary. Everyone makes dumb decisions (such as TEACHING MICHAEL TO DRIVE), nobody knows what’s going on (such as when Jamie Lee Curtis turned her back on Michael, allowing him to escape-- TWICE), and the film simply reeks of bad dialogue and bland acting. It’s a creepy enough movie to watch on Halloween night with your friends, but if you want to see a horror film that is satisfying and intelligent, I suggest you look elsewhere.

HORROR WEEK: Paranormal Activity

When something happens five times, is it still technically classified as “paranormal?” Well, no matter whether it’s original or not, it’s still pretty fucking scary. After the enormous success of The Blair Witch Project, directors everywhere decided that the next frontier of horror lay in the world of found-footage films. Some were shoddy reproductions of the original-- in fact, all of them were. But some of them did it right. Paranormal Activity is one of those special few which actually put some effort into their scares, story, and effects, making it one of the best horror movies of the past decade. But remember... that’s not saying much.

Following in the footsteps of classic horror movies such as The Exorcist, Paranormal Activity is about a malevolent demon that stalks and haunts a girl named Katie and (after she moves in with him) her boyfriend Micah. This premise is far from original, but wonders are done with it. Not many movies are actually capable of making a moving door scary. There’s a lot of scenes in the movie where literally nothing is happening at all, yet the suspense and terror is no less palpable. Sure, there are jump scares, which I regard as being the lowest form of horror, seeing as they’re a cheap and easy way to scare the viewer. But even in between the sudden noises and things that go bump in the night, the movie never lets up the gut-wrenching suspense.

Paranormal Activity is famous for its camera format, in which it uses a typical video camera to tape the events as if it were being filmed by an amateur. However, this concept (as it always does) leads to a lot of problems. Although it does feel more realistic, it also forces the hand of the scriptwriters to write in reasons for the video camera to be present at all times. The result are thousands of throwaway “Put away your stupid camera” lines, which feel increasingly repetitive and out of place. You’d think that eventually, the guy would have the sense to... I don’t know... PUT THE STUPID CAMERA AWAY. Also, it’s pretty easy to tell right from the get-go that none of the cameras used are actually $400 camcorders-- In fact, they’re often some heavy-duty shit. The zoom-ins, framing, and quality are just too precise to be a cheap camera from Best Buy, as the filmmakers purport it to be.

The acting isn’t much to speak of, but then again, nobody really cares about acting in a horror movie. Micah’s character mostly consists of being aloof and self-centered, which really is nothing new to the genre. There’s always the skeptical character who, of course, is eventually proven wrong as the supernatural occurrences become more numerous and frightening. Meanwhile, Katie is pretty generic as well, and all she really has to do throughout the movie is yell “MICAH MICAH I’M SCARED, MICAH OH PLEASE MICAH COME BACK TO BED MICAH.” Sure, looking terrified is a big part of acting in a horror movie. But I really can’t commend the performance of someone who is given so little to work with.

But Paranormal Activity is really at its best when presenting the audience with some of the simplest scares ever crafted. There are extended shots of a door moving, a sheet rustling, footsteps, and a slightly ajar attic door. And I’m not going to lie-- it’s not very involving. However, once you turn off the movie and go to bed, and start hearing strange noises outside... you won’t be able to control the terror. I can’t say much for Paranormal Activity as a filmmaking achievement, but when a movie’s main plot point is the scariness of randomly moving household objects, and it succeeds in scaring the crap out of the viewer, you have to admit that it has some merit.

Final Score for Paranormal Activity: 6/10 stars. It’s pulse-pounding, scary, and involving entertainment, and even though the camerawork is shoddy, the fade-outs are lame, the dialogue is bad, and the acting is even worse, I can’t deny the fact that it actually scared me a bit. And since that’s the one goal of horror movies, well, mission accomplished. It does what it sets out to do-- scare the pants off of people using a minimal budget and random noises. There are plenty of cliches (people being dragged down the hallway is a classic horror effect), but demonic possession never gets old. However, I don’t intend on watching the sequels, as the creators undoubtedly used the ideas that weren’t good enough for the original in the subsequent installments. It’s not that the series is bad... it’s just inevitably repetitive. They should have left it off on a high note and kept the activities paranormal.

HORROR WEEK: Scream

When directors take a stab (pun intended) at the horror genre, certain things should be expected of them. Firstly, a little creativity must be involved in the making of the movie, as horror fans have gotten tired of seeing the same old plot played out over and over again. Secondly, attention should be paid to the actors and dialogue, two things that are often neglected in the genre. And finally, the deaths need to be fun. It pains me to say that Wes Craven, the hit-and-miss director who has in the past given us A Nightmare on Elm Street and Deadly Friend, hits only one of those high points with the derivative and boring Scream.

Retelling the classic (or as I like to call it, recycled) story of the small community terrorized by a serial killer, Scream stars Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott, a teenager whose friends begin dropping like flies after a mysterious killer surfaces in her town. After doing in Drew Barrymore in an iconic sequence, the killer (known as Ghostface) goes after Sidney. Now, here’s the thing: Rotten Tomatoes calls this movie a comedy, but there’s nothing funny in it. Sure, there are plenty of cute nods to horror fans, with references to Halloween and some of Craven’s own films, but there’s nothing about a girl being hung from a tree in front of her parents and disemboweled that one can really find humorous. Sorry-- but the movie just isn’t funny. In fact, I don’t even know if that was its intent.

What is probably Scream’s greatest asset soon becomes its worst affliction, as the in-jokes with slasher fans become so numerous and tongue-in-cheek, the casual viewer will want to slit their wrists. The horror genre has become so self-referencing and self-deprecating, it’s nearly impossible to take seriously. Even Scream, which some call a spoof, was in turn spoofed by the even less entertaining Scary Movie. It’s a never-ending cycle of stupidity, emphasized by franchise-blending movies such as Freddy VS Jason. It’s almost as if the genre knows how dumb it’s become, and has decided to accept its fate and live out the rest of its decidedly numbered days as an ever-spinning wheel of bad pop culture references. What a disappointment.

The characters in this film, as if it needed to be said, are one-dimensional and utterly uninvolving. Clearly, this was intentional, as nobody creates characters this badly without knowing what they’re doing (unless they’re Tommy Wiseau). But contrary to popular belief, when you make a crap movie and you KNOW that it’s crap, that doesn’t make it any more of an ‘art form.’ It’s still crap. Perhaps slightly more clean-cut, but crap nonetheless. The dialogue is atrocious, stilted, and annoying. And even the camerawork, which features a ‘spooky’ atmospheric that seems to bend the shape of the lens, is distracting and uninventive. This movie isn’t merely conventional-- it’s aggressively average.

And yes, horror fans, before you lose your minds over my lack of respect for this movie, I understand that it’s supposed to be self-referencing, unimaginative, and an affectionate look back on teen exploitation flicks of old. It holds such campy, bad horror in reverence. But here’s my problem-- Why couldn’t it revere the GOOD ones? Instead of reusing every single horror cliche in the book, why couldn’t Craven (a man who has proven himself time and time again to be very creative with the genre) think of something new to bring to the table other than this lackluster and banal exercise in dreary camp? How depressing.

But for all its flaws, Scream does deliver some good scares, some ridiculously over-the-top deaths (one even involves a garage door), and a damn good plot twist at the end. Although it’s not good by any means, the movie still was able to cohere a story that should keep less demanding horror fans watching. And although the dialogue is bad, the acting is worse, and the whole thing is one big amalgam of ideas stolen from other, better films... it’s still a far better movie than Friday the 13th.

Final Score for Scream: 3/10 stars. This is pretty lenient, but I suppose that I had a fun time with the film at the end of the day. If you’re willing to set aside more interesting horror movies for a while, turn off your brain, and watch something with absolutely no redeeming qualities other than pure and unbridled entertainment value, you won’t be disappointed. I just hope that this obnoxious exercise in pop crap is just a momentary detour from the genre. Because as the number of horror films I see for horror week gets higher... so do my standards.

HORROR WEEK: American Psycho

Good news, drama fans-- Social commentary is alive and well in the world of cinema. It’s not often that a director can blend horror and scathing humor in such an effective way as in American Psycho, but it’s definitely pulled off here. One doesn’t usually look for biting wit in a horror movie-- especially not one about a psychopathic Wall Street partner who murders people in his spare time-- but the beauty of American Psycho is that you don’t even have to look for it. It hits you over the head with the bludgeoning force of pure insanity.

American Psycho stars Christian Bale as Pat Bateman, a well-off member of the creme de la creme of Wall Street. He has a corner office, a hot secretary, a fiance, and a beautiful penthouse with an epic view. However, he also has a crippling addiction to murder. Firstly, let me say that I loved how well the film plays off of horror movies of old, giving Psycho a fresh and undeniably entertaining twist, while still being original enough to have merit of its own. Instead of presenting us with the typical horror tale, it puts a twist on everything, making the killer the lead, and in the process forcing the audience to become accomplices to his killings. Undoubtedly, those watching it will feel the same malice that Bateman does when murdering innocent people. Which is unsettling... but that’s the point.

Before seeing American Psycho, I was under the impression that Bale was a bit of a bland, boring, and overrated actor. His performances in The Dark Knight trilogy and Rescue Dawn were overrated at best, and his line delivery (especially if it sounds like he has throat cancer) is weak. However, this performance blew me away. Never before have I seen the character of a serial killer tackled with such precision, intensity, and outright glee. He injects an incredible amount of energy into an otherwise one-note character, and the result is some truly classic scenes. Bale has never been more entertaining to watch, and if for nothing else, see American Psycho for him.

The dialogue is spectacular for the most part, but the haphazard scripting is often saved by Bale’s giddy insanity. Coining such seemingly innocuous (yet, in context, extremely creepy) lines such as “Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?” the movie trucks along at a mile a minute, keeping the audience riveted. When one makes a shock/thriller like this, they are forced into outperforming themselves in every scene as the movie progresses, so as not to let up on the suspense. But American Psycho will keep asses in the seats... provided that the audience members don’t have weak stomachs.

But although American Psycho definitely deserves commendation for its epic scripting and memorable performances, it can’t help but be a little scattershot. At the end of the day, the movie boils down to a series of well-done yet emotionally empty scenes that have little weight to carry. It’s pretty haphazard, but as long as you don’t expect it to be very coherent, you’ll have a good time. And really, it’s hard to be picky when you get to see Christian Bale axing a guy in the forehead yelling “TRY GETTING A RESERVATION AT DORSIA NOW, YOU FUCKING STUPID BASTARD!!!”

And really, American Psycho is a horror/thriller, but it’s also a commentary on the mentality of Wall Street, capitalism, and society in general. There are scenes that borrow heavily from horror classics, sure. But the movie is at its best when it shows the insanity of the banking world as crazier than Bateman himself. One scene, in which Bateman and his friends sit around a table comparing each other’s business cards and sizing the competition up, speaks a lot more about the world of money than the world of serial killers. Not only is it entertaining, but those who have soul-crushing jobs in the industry should take away a lot from it.

Final Score for American Psycho: 8/10 stars. Not only is this film terrifying, it’s terrifyingly ACCURATE. It portrays a man who is crazy in two ways: For power and for blood. And surprisingly, the time when he is craziest is when he is leading a normal life, pretending to be a whole person. “There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

FILM REVIEWS: Prisoners

If there’s any moral to the story of Prisoners, it’s that a bad ending can absolutely destroy an otherwise great movie. If you’ve heard anything about the final twist of this film, you have probably heard that (in short) it sucks. But Prisoners represents one of the biggest challenges in making a movie. After building up consistent suspense throughout, how do you end your film? Other movies have squandered their potential with flimsy and poorly-constructed final acts, but few have been as good up until that point as Prisoners. In fact, if it weren’t for that last twenty minutes, this would easily be my favorite film of the year. What a disappointment.

Prisoners is a film about how a person, under enough emotional strain, is capable of doing horrible things for the betterment of his family. This is a theme that seems to be popular nowadays, with the great TV series Breaking Bad coming to a close, and Luc Besson’s Taken slowly becoming a franchise. Stories of men who do whatever it takes to provide for or defend the ones close to them resonate powerfully with a wide audience, as most people are easily sucked in by an everyman who, when put in an unusual situation, must do whatever it takes or pay the price. However, Prisoners and Breaking Bad go a little deeper than most, as they show the initially sympathetic main character’s slow and gut-wrenching spiral into insanity and/or evil, all the while daring the audience to continue rooting for him. As the mistakes and evil deeds of the lead character pile up, the audience must then question their own morals and how far they are willing to follow the character into the dark.

This phenomenon is incredibly powerful, and most movies that attempt to make the audience look within themselves deserve immense praise. If only Prisoners had done it a bit better. Hugh Jackman and Cuba Gooding Jr. star as the fathers of two girls who go missing on a rainy day in suburban Appalachia. The only lead is an RV (Walt and Jesse’s, maybe?) that was parked outside the house and vanished with the girls. A detective (Jake Gyllenhaal) finds the RV and arrests its only occupant: A mentally handicapped man played by Paul Dano. Dano steals the show among some seriously accomplished actors, and that’s saying a lot. He works with society’s inherent mistrust of the mentally ill, and Hugh Jackman’s violent reactions to his complacency are pretty shocking.

Jackman kidnaps Dano, brings him to an abandoned building, and torments him in various brutal ways in order to discover where his daughter is. As his methods of torture become more and more visceral and cringe-inducing, the audience is forced to wonder whether or not Jackman is right. Because even though all the evidence points to his claim, it’s impossible to think that his inhuman cruelty to Dano is somehow defensible. I refuse to spoil this aspect of the film, as it forces the audience to choose a side-- Are Jackman’s actions justified or reprehensible? The choice that the viewer makes speaks more about his perception than it does the movie. It’s incredibly amoral, but it gets the point across.

However, as I don’t want to spoil this film, I can’t reveal the twist ending. But I can reveal PART of it. So, the person doing the kidnapping (Dano or not) did it because he/she wanted to “Wage a war with God” for the loss of his/her son/daughter/nephew/niece/uncle/aunt/father/mother (just trying to cover everything here, people, it’s not easy to avoid spoilers). It seemed like a massive letdown that catered to people who wanted to be let off the hook for the cognitive dissonance brought up in the previous paragraph. Also, it smacked a little too much of a stereotypical horror movie-style cliched ending. I’m sure that the director had a big vision for the end of this movie, but I’m also sure that it got lost somewhere along the way.

The acting, fortunately, is enough to hold up the flimsy plot. Jackman makes an epic transformation from an average redneck father into a soulless madman hell-bent on the preservation of his family and the integrity of his position as the head of the household. Gyllenhaal, meanwhile, is just as good as he’s been in some of his other best movies, from Donnie Darko to Source Code. He has a huge amount of range as an actor, and he delivers a great performance here as the voice of reason and moral center of the movie. If it weren’t for his grounding performance, the film would probably feel unrealistic and impossible to connect with, as all the other characters are so over-the-top and unrelatable. But fortunately, he creates a character who is not only easy to relate to, but extremely well-written.

Final Score for Prisoners: 8/10 stars. It’s well-written, well-acted, and will have you gripping the edge of your seat even as the credits roll. It’s definitely not perfect, but it certainly outperforms a lot of the emotionless, unoriginal movies masquerading as dramas that have come out recently. In a year that has been polluted by special effects extravaganzas, shitty sequels, and horribly pretentious indie dramas, Prisoners and films like it are the saving grace. I’ll gladly take a great showcase for Jackman, Gyllenhaal, and Dano if it means that I have to suffer through the occasional Movie 43.

FILM REVIEWS: Captain Phillips

If it weren’t for Daniel Day-Lewis’s performance as Abraham Lincoln, I would say that Captain Phillips has given us the most obvious lock for Best Actor in recent memory. Everyone says that Tom Hanks is one of the greatest actors of all time, pointing to films such as Forrest Gump-- but I say that it’s here, where he is at his most reserved and realistic, where he really proves himself to be one of the great actors of our time. Instead of playing a cartoon, he instead plays a real person in a real-life situation, making the movie far more involving and powerful. Also, because it’s a true story, I can’t pick apart plot holes. CURSES. Anyway, here we go.

Captain Phillips is the story of Richard Phillips, the captain (duh) of the cargo ship that was ambushed in 2009 by Somali Pirates off the coast of the horn of Africa. As the situation degrades, Phillips is taken hostage, the navy is called in, and shit gets real as the pirates start bickering with each other. Now, if you remember the actual event from 2009, I can imagine that there wouldn’t be much suspense in this movie for you. But back in ‘09, I was eleven years old, making it a little less easy for me to remember big news stories from the time. So I had the added bonus of not knowing ahead of time whether Phillips lived or died. Well, I guess the fact that this movie was based on the book he wrote about the event could have tipped me off... fuck it.

This movie has very few flaws, which means that when they are present, they stand out. Some of the dialogue is questionable, especially at the beginning where Phillips is talking to his wife. Clearly the writers understood this, and wrote her out as quickly as possible, sending us right into the action. There’s also some shaky-cam, which (contrary to popular belief) is NOT a revolutionary form of cinematography. The next half-hour, however,  is VERY well-done, and seeing as most audience members have never sailed on a cargo ship before, it was entertaining and interesting to see what life was like on the boat. Also, this sequence builds the suspense and educates the audience about the goings-on of the ship, making the rest of the movie easier to understand, more entertaining, and fills the film with tension. Not to mention the foreshadowing shots of the lifeboat at the back of the ship, which are utterly goosebump-inducing.

The whole movie is very well-crafted, and exceptionally paced. No parts were glossed over, nothing was given too much or too little screen time, and it generally clicked along like a Swiss watch. When the pirates finally board, it’s a powerful scene, because somehow the director was able to create suspense in an event whose course is already set. Everyone knows that the pirates will board; it’s just a matter of when. But still, people will groan and sit in awe when it finally happens. It’s a trick in film that takes some serious mastering, but director Paul Greengrass knows what he’s doing, and his assured direction is both inspiring and wrought with tension. This is the kind of work that gives me hope for the future of cinema.

Tom Hanks, meanwhile, delivers a typically stunning performance as the nerve-wracked captain. I must say, it’s getting old seeing Tom Hanks deliver such tour de forces. But that’s a good complaint to have. The fact of the matter is that Hanks doesn’t quite bring his A-game until later in the movie, but that fits the tone perfectly. Phillips himself doesn’t have to do much other than a routine shipping until the pirates board, and that’s precisely the time when Hanks begins his incredible acting. A perfect example: When an actor plays a character who is lying, they often make the mistake of having the character be too good at it. Sure, an actor is probably great at lying in real life-- THEY’RE A FRIGGIN’ ACTOR. But when playing an ordinary person, the actor has to remember to make the lie a little less than believable. Hanks is exceptional at this. As he guides the Somalis through the corridors and rooms of the ship, his acting is believable but his lies are not. Which is not only exceptional acting, it’s entertaining. By the time Hanks delivers his emotional and cathartic final scene, the audience will be absolutely riveted.

Barkhad Abdi meanwhile, in his first movie role, plays the pirate’s leader with remarkable finesse. He actually holds his own against Hanks, which is an amazing thing for someone who has never been in a film before. The whole cast is fleshed-out and perfectly chosen, but it’s the intense dynamic between Hanks and Abdi that makes it so good. Their dialogue is extremely well-written, and the writers made the pirates far deeper and more three-dimensional than I was expecting. They could have just made them faceless villains who don’t have anything more to their personalities than greed and vanity. But instead, they became sympathetic characters who (although they were shitheads and deserved to die) actually conveyed a lot of depth and confliction. They were ordinary fishermen reduced to a life of crime, and it was depressing. But it was also very good entertainment.

Final Score for Captain Phillips: 9/10 stars. It had some minor flaws, but those are easily overlooked when you think about the acting capability and directorial prowess displayed in this film. Sure, there’s some moments that aren’t particularly memorable. But in a movie where there is something unforgettable practically every five minutes, that’s not a huge complaint. It’s intense, it’s dramatic, and it’s VERY well-acted. This is one of the best movies of the year.

FILM REVIEWS: Trance

Danny Boyle is an interesting director, and consistently demonstrates his capability to work with any genre. In the past, he has given us Sunshine, a futuristic science fiction story about scientists trying to reignite the sun, Slumdog Millionaire, a sappy romance set in India, and Trainspotting, a drama/comedy about drug abuse in Scotland. The one constant in all of his films, however, is the attention to the characters (except maybe in Slumdogshit Millionaire). Unfortunately, this becomes the fatal flaw of Trance, his newest film, which blends heist cinema with an unusual romantic edge.

Let’s be clear: Trance isn’t bad. It’s just fatally average. The movie stars James McAvoy as Simon, an art auctioneer who steals one of his own paintings in order to pay for his gambling debts. After getting involved with some hardened criminals (whose leader is played by Vincent Cassel) and a mysterious hypnotist (Rosario Dawson), plot twist after plot twist piles on as it so often tends to do in Boyle films. It’s pretty convoluted, but if the audience pays close attention, they will not be let down by the story itself.

The acting is very strong, especially from McAvoy. He plays confused and manipulated very well, and is one of those few actors who are able to convey a lot of emotion just from a look on their face. The movie did take a turn for the worse when we stopped rooting for him however, as he was such a likable lead that his ultimate character revealing and (spoiler alert) demise seems a little harsh. Dawson is good as well, but the romance between her and McAvoy doesn’t always work. People went into this movie expecting some mind-bending, Ocean’s Eleven-style heists, but instead they got a strange an uninvolving romance. Lame.

And by the way, character-driven dramas only work if the acting and the script are good. Unfortunately, Trance meets only one of these criteria. It’s not very well-written, making the characters a little less absorbing than they should be. Boyle was trying to give his audiences a serious and intense look at a man’s descent into madness, but when people say lines like “At last, you have repressed the memory of me,” it’s not that interesting.

However, Trance does have an interesting concept. The respect it has for the art being auctioned off makes it gain a few points in my book, and McAvoy’s obvious love for what he does is palpable in every minute of the intro. If only it had stuck with its thriller roots instead of devolving into a mindless, empty drama about a woman who wiped her boyfriend’s mind, it would have worked extremely well. Instead, it tried to go all Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind on us and screw around with plot points that were either too romantic or just didn’t make any sense.

But as always, I like to hand out points for cinematography. And Trance has some GREAT camerawork. The other two films this year with trippy and engaging cinematography were Spring Breakers and Only God Forgives, two movies that were absolutely beautiful, yet mind-blowingly vapid and empty upon closer inspection. Fortunately, Trance has interesting enough characters and a mediocre script, making it far more bearable than those other two cinema-anuses. Still, visuals can’t carry a movie. But in Trance, they come close.

Final Score for Trance: 5/10 stars. Certainly passable, definitely watchable, and several steps up from Slumdog Millionaire. But for those of you looking for some classic Boyle work, you may have to look elsewhere. This movie feels almost like a time killer for Boyle to toy around with before making something truly epic. Still, I can’t fault it for being a fun little film. It just inevitably collapses under its own weight. It’s a shame, because it certainly had potential.