Paranormal Activity 3

Continuing the exploration of mysterious hauntings in Katie and Kristi's family from the first two films in the series, Paranormal Activity 3 takes an already successful formula and manages to improve upon it. Catfish directors Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost create another suspenseful and terrifying entry into a franchise that's become a staple for Paramount.

Paranormal Activity 3
Directors: Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost
Starring: Christopher Nicholas Smith, Lauren Bittner, Chloe Csengery, Jessica Tyler Brown

After a brief introduction to the characters from previous films talking about old home videos, this movie flashes back to 1988 and details the inciting incident in the childhoods of Katie and Kristi. Their mother Julie thinks Kristi is going through a phase with an imaginary friend, but her new boyfriend Dennis (the clear protagonist this time out) is shocked to find out there is much more going on than anyone anticipated. The acting is pretty solid from everyone involved, including the child actors (which is a shocking statement if you know me and my stance on kids in film). The girl who plays young Kristi is especially creepy, and there are a couple of secondary characters - the grandmother, Dennis' best friend Randy - who round out the cast with some great moments, including a phenomenal scene in which Randy and Katie play Bloody Mary in the bathroom (which is notably different from the trailer, which shows Katie and Kristi playing the game).

I'm convinced that the biggest star of these films is someone who's never actually seen on camera at all: the editor. This movie is a master class in building and releasing tension, and it makes this franchise one of the most frightening I've ever seen. It's not the script that gets everyone riled up - this story is essentially a Poltergeist rip-off from one of my least favorite directors of year, Christopher B. Landon - it's the editing. Rarely does a movie make me examine each shot so closely, constantly scanning the frame for signs of things that are out of the ordinary. It's exhausting watching these films, and by the time they reach their conclusions, there's always a no-holds-barred rumble with the demon haunting these characters.

Paranormal Activity 2 added to the structure of the first film by adding security cameras to the mix; instead of scouring the image from just one camera set up over the main couple's bed, we watched multiple security cameras as they rotated through the feed, giving us more images to pour over. For me, the goal is always to try to spot the abnormality as quickly as possible; it minimizes the scariness if I know what to look for and where it's coming from. Trouble is, the filmmakers are onto me and my train of thought. In PA3, they've added yet another element to the fray, and it's perhaps the scariest yet - an oscillating fan with a camera attached to it. It may sound stupid if you haven't seen the movie, but if you've witnessed it, you know that the unyielding and indiscriminate back and forth motion is responsible for some of the film's scariest moments.

I don't know if I can say I actually enjoyed this film because it scared the hell out of me, but it's certainly more of the same tension-filled frightening moments this series is known for. In other words, if you liked the first two, you'll like this one. And I know I gave Chris Landon crap earlier, but I have to applaud one quick line he wrote regarding memory loss that allows this movie to seamlessly transition into future films. Until next time...

Ghoulies

Welcome to another entry in the Spooktacular Shocktoberfest Big Horror Movie Scare-A-Thon. In case you didn't get the memo, most of the films covered in this year's series are going to be downright terrible, and Ghoulies is no exception.

Ghoulies
Director: Luca Bercovici
Starring: Peter Liapis, Lisa Pelikan

This pathetic Gremlins/Critters knockoff was somehow released in theaters in 1985. Seemingly contrary to the poster, the filmmakers made the problematic decision not to rely on the creatures as much as the human actors around them. That's a problem because the acting is hilariously bad - and yes, we're talking almost Troll 2 levels here. The series inexplicably spawned three sequels, including the hilariously-titled third installment, Ghoulies 3: Ghoulies Go To College.

This movie opens with Malcolm Graves preparing a Satanic ritual in the basement of his extravagant California mansion, complete with multiple Ghoulies sitting around watching the proceedings. If you're wondering if the film addresses why there are Ghoulies present at this ceremony, or if it goes into the history of the Ghoulies, what they are exactly, why they exist, or offer any relevant information about them whatsoever, the answer is no. Anyway, Malcolm, complete with Jello-colored green eyes enhanced by some uninspired special effects, is about to sacrifice his infant son Jonathan...for some reason. All of a sudden (is there any other kind of interruption?), an old man named Wolfgang interferes with the proceedings and saves Jonathan's life. Fast forward 25 years, and a strange narration informs us that Malcolm is buried on the land and Jonathan has inherited the mansion. Ol' Johnny's there with his girl, Rebecca, and they meet the creepy Wolfgang, who's now living there and working as the groundskeeper. While fixing the place up, Jonathan stumbles across the old demonic journals and How-To Guides for Conjuring Ghoulies.

Rebecca calls for a party - it's the 80s after all - and after the huge soiree is whittled down to about six stereotypical friends (druggie duo, sex-crazed slick haired dude, bimbo, nerd, etc), they all go down to the basement for some devil magic hocus pocus. Jonathan leads the charge, chanting and drawing pentagrams everywhere, and when he supposedly conjures a Ghoulie, nothing happens...yet. Everyone goes upstairs, but the Ghoulie appears a little later and...does nothing. That's the thing about the Ghoulies - they barely do anything in the entire movie. Sure, they bite the occasional person and maybe are responsible for five total deaths across the film's runtime, but they're fairly harmless when it boils down to it. They're pretty similar to the tiny creatures in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, actually, except these have a bit of that nostalgic practical effects vibe that Troy Nixey's creatures were sorely lacking.

So Jonathan (who resembles a poor man's Nathan Fillion) drops out of school and becomes obsessed with black magic, much to the dismay of Rebecca, who gets super pissed at him for doing his whole "dressing in a giant robe and carrying around a plastic trident" routine. She tries to leave him, but Johnny's too quick for her - he conjures up two midgets (NOT Ghoulies) who have mind control powers or something and they don't allow her to exit. Brainwashing his friends, Jonathan tries to perform a ritual so he can get ultimate knowledge and power (duh). 

But remember Malcolm, dear old dad from the beginning? He's resurrected and totally evil, bursting onto the scene and wrecking people left and right. He challenges Jonathan as Master of All Ghoulies (I'm making that up, but just barely), but Johnny's saved by - YOU GUESSED IT! - the old man groundskeeper, Wolfgang! He's dressed in his own robes, and he and Malcolm have a Wizard-Off (TM), resulting in a bunch of questionable CG and an earthquake. Oh yeah, and spoiler alert - all of the friends who have been killed up until now, Rebecca included, are miraculously brought back to life and escape. But that's not all - the gang realizes (oh come on, like you haven't figured this out yet?) that they've got a few extra passengers on board as they drive away. It's Alvin and the Chipmunks, singing and dancing the whole way back to town. I'm kidding. It's Ghoulies.

Everything about this movie, from the acting to the sets, directing, and creature design, is dull and unoriginal. Even the poster, which features that (I'll call it classic) image of a Ghoulie emerging from a toilet, provides more of a psychological impact than the entirety of the actual film. Legend has it that the movie was already done and that image was created as a marketing tactic, so the director went back and inserted one shot of it actually happening into the film. Soon after, he received tons of complaints from parents trying unsuccessfully to potty train their kids, thanks to that image supposedly making things more difficult for them. There isn't a hint of life on display here, and the entire endeavor feels like a cheap replica of things we've seen before - kind of like those Chinese superhero knockoff toys.

Unless you're a glutton for punishment, or someone who has a very specific set of goals for this Halloween season like this gentleman, I'd say skip this one and watch Troll 2 again (or its documentary counterpart, Best Worst Movie). Keep your eyes peeled for more "horror" (and maybe some legit horror) movie reviews in the coming days at NotJustNewMovies.com. Until next time...

The NJNM Podcast: Ep. 62 - Raging Bull (Guest: DC Pierson from "Mystery Team")

In this week's episode, Ben and Tyler are joined by DC Pierson (from Mystery Team and DERRICK Comedy) to discuss Martin Scorsese's 1980 film, Raging Bull.




Introduction
DC answers questions about his book possibly being made into a film - 1:18
Character Name Game Intro - 5:16

Media Consumed
Tyler
"2 Broke Girls" - 5:40
Grizzly Rage - 11:00
Jason Goes to Hell - 14:18

DC
Swimming to Cambodia - 15:02
Monster in the Box - 17:45
Gray's Anatomy - 19:03

Ben
Pretty Woman - 22:50

Review
Raging Bull - 28:30

Wrap-Up
Next Time: Videodrome - 1:15:15
Listener E-mail/Voicemail/Twitter - 1:15:55
Character Name Game - 1:28:30
Where You Can Find Us - 1:30:33

The Thing (2011)

Though everyone involved with the production claims The Thing is not a remake of John Carpenter's 1982 film of the same name, it's pretty clear after seeing the movie that this serves dual purposes as both prequel and remake. Set three days before the events of the Kurt Russell classic (which we reviewed on the Not Just New Movies Podcast, by the way), this version tells the story of the discovery of the titular creature and reveals how it was unleashed.

The Thing (2011)
Director: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Starring: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Eric Christian Olsen

In winter of 1982, Norwegian scientists discover a massive spacecraft buried in the ice in Antarctica. Lead scientist Sander Halversen and his research assist enlist the help of American paleontologist Kate Lloyd, who travels with them to the site and aids in the discovery of an alien body trapped in the ice. Halversen demands a tissue sample (tsk, tsk), and after refusing to listen to Kate's warnings, takes it anyway, awaking the creature from its 100,000 year slumber. The "thing" can take the shape of anything it touches, and as it slowly makes its way through the camp killing everyone one at a time, it leaves the remaining survivors paranoid and increasingly suspicious of each other.

For as much reverence as these filmmakers claim to have for Carpenter's movie, they failed to learn one of the most important lessons exemplified by that film: sometimes computer graphics are no match for classic practical effects. Carpenter's The Thing was made in 1982 and, for the most part, those effects still hold up and are freaky as hell. For every scene of effective CG here, there was a misfire reminiscent of Dwayne Johnson's awful animated face in the final minutes of The Scorpion King. If you're here solely for the gross-out factor, then you may have found your match; there are some pretty gruesome effects (many that feature two heads melding into one hideous body), and there's no shortage of nasty tendrils bursting through people's chests.

Most of the problem with the movie being this strange hybrid of prequel and remake is that it robs the film of any sense of drama. We know exactly how it's going to end - stay after the first few credits for a quick lead-in to the '82 flick - and as soon as this version of The Thing moves inside the Antarctica station, we slowly start to realize that it's essentially recreating every scene from its precursor without enough variation to make it an interesting film on its own. That's the difference between something like this and Matt Reeves' Let Me In: while ostensibly an American remake of the Swedish vampire film Let The Right One In, Let Me In has just enough deviation to justify its existence. Reeves attached his own sense of atmosphere to that movie, so even though a lot of the same things happened, it still has a bit of a different feel than the original. Van Heijningen's take on The Thing just feels like a boring rehash of what came before, with the occasional easter egg (there's the axe in the wall!!!!!1!!!) to theoretically satiate fans who know Carpenter's flick inside and out. Nice try, but I'm not buying it.

This isn't an offensively bad movie, it's just impossible to compare it favorably to the classic it so blatantly rips off. Kurt Russell's character from '82 has been split into two characters in this version: Mary Elizabeth Winstead as the scientist, and Joel Edgerton as the helicopter pilot. (The fact that Russell was both makes that movie even more badass.) Winstead is a bit more lackluster than I would have liked; I was hoping this would be a career launchpad for her, but unless it pulls in some big numbers at the box office, I don't imagine this will open any leading lady doors for her any time soon. Edgerton barely shows up and clearly suffers from "too little to do" syndrome. He's proven himself as a solid actor (ahem, Warrior), but it's pretty obvious his character is an afterthought. With the exception of the ridiculously over the top Halversen (played by Ulrich Thomsen), who spouts lines like, "We have to rely on science" with a straight face, no one else in the cast does anything warranting comment.

There are more flames here than in any other movie, perhaps ever. (That's including films like Backdraft and things of its ilk.) Flamethrowers never run out of fuel, and it seems as though there are ten of them lying around the station for no good reason other than to be picked up by our characters. For a movie set in Antarctica, the characters don't ever appear to get cold, going so far as to regularly wander into the supposedly freezing weather outside without even covering their faces. The movie falls prey to typical Hollywood plot holes (why is everyone driving around outside if other characters claimed they disabled all of the vehicles earlier? Why did that single grenade cause an explosion the size of Rhode Island?), but that kind of stupidity is par for the course in a movie like this.

As if you couldn't tell by now, I won't recommend this to anyone. The Blu-ray of Carpenter's film is pristine, so there's no excuse not to watch that one instead. It's better crafted, has meaningful suspense, and contains good performances. The 2011 version is like watching the '82 movie in a dirty mirror: the entire concept is backwards, and though most of it looks similar, upon closer inspection you're just seeing a dirty reflection. Until next time...