Introduction
I will be reviewing "Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones," here and in the newspaper I write for, "The Utah Statesman." However, from what I understand, one needs see at least the first three films in the franchise to understand it. Because of this, I will be reviewing these movies on this blog.
In the interest of time, I will only write short reviews of the first three films. I will concentrate more time on the one that is coming out this weekend.
Review
"Paranormal Activity" succeeds as a horror film because it uses its simplicity to create a realistic feel.
Katie and Micah (played by actors with the same first names: Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat) are boyfriend and girlfriend living with each other. Before they moved in, Katie neglected to tell Micah that she has had past experience with some kind of presence. She has been visited by some kind of entity, and she does not know what it is. It is revealed in the beginning by a paranormal expert that this presence is demonic.
The presence has been felt off and on in her life. It has been dormant for a while, but she is starting to see weird stuff coming back to visit her. Micah decides to document their life with a video camera to see if what she is saying is true. During the day, he records their day-to-day interactions. By night, he records them as they sleep to see if there is anything out of the ordinary happening.
Each night, something happens. It starts out fairly subtle, but after a while it becomes more and more bizarre.
From beginning to end, this movie is very entertaining. The filmmakers knew that in order to give a good sense of horror, the audience needs an emotional attachment to the characters.
Watching the couple interact is part of what makes it fun. Micah is funny at times because he is sarcastic. He does not seem to believe that there is any such thing as demons, so he does not take anything seriously. Katie, however, knows what she has seen and felt, and she gets really mad when he makes fun of her.
What is interesting about this is the men watching into this movie can relate to Micah and the women to Katie. *I do not mean to make a lot of assumptions, but in my experience, women are usually more scared of horror films than men. Before I saw this movie, the women I talked to thought I was crazy that I would even watch it.
At the beginning of the movie, I felt calm like Micah. However as it progresses, he starts getting more concerned, and I could definitely feel the intensity build itself up.
This film was very cheap to make. The main actors are both not very famous except for in the franchise this film started. Paying them must not have been difficult. The camera is a cheap one that most people can afford. The special effects are also fairly inexpensive in that it mostly involves things moving around. According to IMDB's "Paranormal Activity" page, the estimated budget for this film was only $15,000.
The simplicity and cheapness of it all is why it ended up being horrifying. Knowing that there are no great special effects, the filmmakers had to focus their efforts on making sure it is well written with what they had. The demonic presence shown is usually subtle with a door creaking or a big noise. The biggest effects are things moving around. By the end, it gave me a good sense of terror.
I give this movie 5 out of 5 stars. It succeeds in a way movies with a higher budget often fail to do: scare me. It does so with its simple special effects and outstanding writing.
Content: Rated R. There is a little sexual content and implications that a couple is either about to engage in intercourse or has already done so, but it is nothing you would not see in a standard PG-13 movie. There is maybe a little bit of blood at the end, but it is not very clear. There is moderate language including quite a few "F" words.
*I just want to make one thing clear: I do not intend to start any stereotypes that are wrong about women. I am just talking about how men and women tend to react differently according to my own experiences. I know that there are quite a few women who love horror and are not scared of it at all.
Jan 3, 2014
Jan 2, 2014
"Grudge Match" Review
"Grudge Match" definitely has its dumb, cliché moments, but with a talented cast and interesting relationship dynamics, it is surprisingly enjoyable.
Henry "Razor" Sharp (Sylvester Stallone) and Billy "The Kid" McDonnen (Robert De Niro) are former boxing rivals. Previously there had been a few matches between them that ended with no clear winner. A grudge match was planned, but Sharp dropped out for some reason.
The movie starts about thirty years later. Sharp is now a poor, blue collar worker. Kid is now a successful businessman who owns a restaurant and dealership. Kid is a womanizer who looks at his past with fondness, while Sharp is more introverted and does not seem to want to talk about his boxing career.
They both somehow had the same manager whose son, Kevin Slate Jr. (Kevin Hart, "This is the End"), is now wanting to make some money off of them.
There is a boxing video game coming out, and Slate is able to convince Sharp to be in it. The game designers need him to go to the studio so they can program his computerized character according to his moves. What he does not know is Kid is also there to be in the game. When they see each other, they get in a fight, which gets recorded and becomes a viral video.
Slate sees this as an opportunity to promote a grudge match between the two veteran boxers. They are both pretty old, so there is a lot of doubt that having them box is a good idea.
Coming into the movie, I had very low expectations. When I saw the advertisement, I thought it looked a lot like "Rocky Balboa," which also stars Sylvester Stallone. There are quite a few similarities. An old veteran boxer played by the same actor does not want to be in any more fights, but because of new technology, people are curious to see how he would hold up now.
There are also quite a few differences, however. This movie does not deal with one, but two veteran boxers who were bitter rivals back in the day. One seems okay with doing another match, but the other has a lot of reservations. In a way it is more how a sequel to "Rush" would be rather than a rehashing of something that has already been done.
That is what is good about this movie. It is not as cliché as I thought it would be. The relationship between the rivals is interesting in that it goes deeper than what the world knows.
Another interesting dynamic that is introduced is between Kid and his son B.J., played by "The Walking Dead's" Jon Bernthal. B.J. finds out that the father he knew is not his biological father, but that it is actually Kid. He goes to talk to him, and a relationship develops as he becomes Kid's trainer. I am not going to go into too much detail about this, but I will say there is also a connection between this and Sharp's relationship with Kid as well.
This is one of the rare movies in which the more funny parts are not in the trailer. If you have seen the trailer, you may have noticed that the jokes are hit and miss. There are some parts that legitimately made me laugh. Other scenes tried a little too hard. Some of the time it seemed like it tried to force the audience to laugh by being crude. It worked on me some of the time, but at other times it did not.
The performances were all good. Robert De Niro plays a complete womanizer, and he did a good job at it. I really believe him as an old horn dog.
Sylvester Stallone also does a good job in his role. It is not different from what he usually does. He played a boxer in at least six different movies, and a reluctant hero in both "Rocky Balboa" and "Rambo" (2008). It is familiar territory for him, which is why he did so well.
Alan Arkin also did a great job as Sharp's trainer. He is a quirky old man who has a hearing problem. Arkin is no stranger to comedic roles, and he does a good job in this film.
I also enjoyed seeing Jon Bernthal in this. He is better known as the unstable Shane Walsh in "The Walking Dead." I grew to hate his character in that show, and this is partly due to the actor doing such a good job. In this movie, he is a very good person. He is a responsible father who loves his son and wants to get to know his own dad. It is a breath of fresh air seeing him as a likable character, and I hope to see him cast in more films.
There were a couple problems I had with this film. One of them is that the script is redundant at times. The dialogue is not horrible, but there are some moments in which it seems the characters take too long to say something in an attempt to be funny. At other times, there is forced exposition that should have been handled a little more subtly.
A bigger problem I had is there is a section that goes into annoyingly cliché territory. I made an audible groan as one of the characters made a decision that is very stupid and horrible.
Without giving anything away, what happens is the same kind of thing as in romantic comedies when one person finds out something bad about his or her significant other and breaks the relationship off. It always leads to the two ruminating how good they had it, and they ultimately get back together in the end.
Fortunately, in this film, a couple does not break up, but there are relationship issues. It is very predictable that everything will go well in the end despite the fact that one character did something very stupid. Despite knowing what was going to happen, this coming back together was not very believable. What the character did was deplorable and a out of place. It made me as an audience member have no respect for that person, and this movie would have been so much better off without that section.
I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. It does have its dumb cliché moments, but it is still a good movie that I did not regret seeing. The characters are interesting with believable motivations. The relationship dynamics are entertaining, and there are some parts that made me laugh. It is worth at least renting when it comes to Redbox. If you want to see it in theatres, I do not think you would be disappointed seeing it at matinee price.
For more details on what I base my ratings off of, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html
Content: Rated PG-13. There is moderate language throughout including one "f" word that I do not personally remember hearing (I know about it because of IMDB's parents guide). There is quite a bit of crude humor and sexual content that might not be appropriate for children. There are boxing fights with hard hits and some blood, but there is nothing too gory.
Topic for Comment: What is your favorite fighting movie and why?
Henry "Razor" Sharp (Sylvester Stallone) and Billy "The Kid" McDonnen (Robert De Niro) are former boxing rivals. Previously there had been a few matches between them that ended with no clear winner. A grudge match was planned, but Sharp dropped out for some reason.
The movie starts about thirty years later. Sharp is now a poor, blue collar worker. Kid is now a successful businessman who owns a restaurant and dealership. Kid is a womanizer who looks at his past with fondness, while Sharp is more introverted and does not seem to want to talk about his boxing career.
They both somehow had the same manager whose son, Kevin Slate Jr. (Kevin Hart, "This is the End"), is now wanting to make some money off of them.
There is a boxing video game coming out, and Slate is able to convince Sharp to be in it. The game designers need him to go to the studio so they can program his computerized character according to his moves. What he does not know is Kid is also there to be in the game. When they see each other, they get in a fight, which gets recorded and becomes a viral video.
Slate sees this as an opportunity to promote a grudge match between the two veteran boxers. They are both pretty old, so there is a lot of doubt that having them box is a good idea.
Coming into the movie, I had very low expectations. When I saw the advertisement, I thought it looked a lot like "Rocky Balboa," which also stars Sylvester Stallone. There are quite a few similarities. An old veteran boxer played by the same actor does not want to be in any more fights, but because of new technology, people are curious to see how he would hold up now.
There are also quite a few differences, however. This movie does not deal with one, but two veteran boxers who were bitter rivals back in the day. One seems okay with doing another match, but the other has a lot of reservations. In a way it is more how a sequel to "Rush" would be rather than a rehashing of something that has already been done.
That is what is good about this movie. It is not as cliché as I thought it would be. The relationship between the rivals is interesting in that it goes deeper than what the world knows.
Another interesting dynamic that is introduced is between Kid and his son B.J., played by "The Walking Dead's" Jon Bernthal. B.J. finds out that the father he knew is not his biological father, but that it is actually Kid. He goes to talk to him, and a relationship develops as he becomes Kid's trainer. I am not going to go into too much detail about this, but I will say there is also a connection between this and Sharp's relationship with Kid as well.
This is one of the rare movies in which the more funny parts are not in the trailer. If you have seen the trailer, you may have noticed that the jokes are hit and miss. There are some parts that legitimately made me laugh. Other scenes tried a little too hard. Some of the time it seemed like it tried to force the audience to laugh by being crude. It worked on me some of the time, but at other times it did not.
The performances were all good. Robert De Niro plays a complete womanizer, and he did a good job at it. I really believe him as an old horn dog.
Sylvester Stallone also does a good job in his role. It is not different from what he usually does. He played a boxer in at least six different movies, and a reluctant hero in both "Rocky Balboa" and "Rambo" (2008). It is familiar territory for him, which is why he did so well.
Alan Arkin also did a great job as Sharp's trainer. He is a quirky old man who has a hearing problem. Arkin is no stranger to comedic roles, and he does a good job in this film.
I also enjoyed seeing Jon Bernthal in this. He is better known as the unstable Shane Walsh in "The Walking Dead." I grew to hate his character in that show, and this is partly due to the actor doing such a good job. In this movie, he is a very good person. He is a responsible father who loves his son and wants to get to know his own dad. It is a breath of fresh air seeing him as a likable character, and I hope to see him cast in more films.
There were a couple problems I had with this film. One of them is that the script is redundant at times. The dialogue is not horrible, but there are some moments in which it seems the characters take too long to say something in an attempt to be funny. At other times, there is forced exposition that should have been handled a little more subtly.
A bigger problem I had is there is a section that goes into annoyingly cliché territory. I made an audible groan as one of the characters made a decision that is very stupid and horrible.
Without giving anything away, what happens is the same kind of thing as in romantic comedies when one person finds out something bad about his or her significant other and breaks the relationship off. It always leads to the two ruminating how good they had it, and they ultimately get back together in the end.
Fortunately, in this film, a couple does not break up, but there are relationship issues. It is very predictable that everything will go well in the end despite the fact that one character did something very stupid. Despite knowing what was going to happen, this coming back together was not very believable. What the character did was deplorable and a out of place. It made me as an audience member have no respect for that person, and this movie would have been so much better off without that section.
I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. It does have its dumb cliché moments, but it is still a good movie that I did not regret seeing. The characters are interesting with believable motivations. The relationship dynamics are entertaining, and there are some parts that made me laugh. It is worth at least renting when it comes to Redbox. If you want to see it in theatres, I do not think you would be disappointed seeing it at matinee price.
For more details on what I base my ratings off of, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html
Content: Rated PG-13. There is moderate language throughout including one "f" word that I do not personally remember hearing (I know about it because of IMDB's parents guide). There is quite a bit of crude humor and sexual content that might not be appropriate for children. There are boxing fights with hard hits and some blood, but there is nothing too gory.
Topic for Comment: What is your favorite fighting movie and why?
Jan 1, 2014
Defining my Rating System
Introduction
As a reviewer, the most difficult thing for me to do has been to rate movies. I mentioned this at the beginning of my top ten list because some of the movies that I rated 4.5 or 5 were lower on the list than others I had rated higher. I am trying to refine my rating system because I am the type of guy who either really likes a movie, kind of likes a movie or doesn't like a movie at all. With this kind of mindset, I have been trying to be as fair as I can to movies, and I know I have rated some too high and others too low in the process.
I have been giving some thought into not using the five star system and doing something way different. I was actually thinking of doing a color system in which I assign certain meaning to some colors. However, even that comes down to the five star rating system. Everything I can think of ultimately converts to it.
What I would like to do is have a smaller amount of wiggle room within the five stars. There are so many times where I rate it as a three meaning that it is good, but then I think "But three seems kind of harsh, maybe I should give it an extra .5." Maybe it's because I am naturally a pretty nice guy who does not like to be harsh or unfair.
The bottom line is this: I overcomplicate things, and I have decided to define my rating criteria for you so that it is less of a complication for me:
1 Star: Avoid this movie! If you see this rating from me, it means I do not think this movie is worth seeing even when it comes on television. A movie will have this score if I could tell little to no effort was clearly placed. There may be some exceptions to this. For example, I might give a movie this score if I find it very offensive.
2 Stars: Wait for it to come on television. I would not go out of my way to watch this movie again, but if it is on television one day, it might be worth at least watching. There was some effort put into this movie, and it is often entertaining at moments. It is just not worth going out of your way to see.
3 Stars: Watch it on Netflix or Redbox it. It was a decent flick that had me entertained. I would probably see it again, and it is something I would recommend. However, do not worry about seeing this one in theatres. It is good, not great.
4 Stars: See it in theatres at matinee price. This is a very good movie. Go ahead and go see this one in theatres. However, the quality of the movie is not good enough to where I would recommend it at full price.
5 Stars: See this movie at full price. This movie is just an all around great film. By all means go see it. I would never advise someone to skip the matinee price because I believe in saving money. However, if you can only make it to a nightly showing, go ahead and see it. You will not feel like you have been cheated.
I will see how the ratings go according to this criteria I have set. I may one day actually combine the 4 and 5 stars just because there really is not a huge difference between seeing it at matinee and full price. However, I like keeping it at five stars because it gives you enough detail about how I thought the quality of the movie was.
As a reviewer, the most difficult thing for me to do has been to rate movies. I mentioned this at the beginning of my top ten list because some of the movies that I rated 4.5 or 5 were lower on the list than others I had rated higher. I am trying to refine my rating system because I am the type of guy who either really likes a movie, kind of likes a movie or doesn't like a movie at all. With this kind of mindset, I have been trying to be as fair as I can to movies, and I know I have rated some too high and others too low in the process.
I have been giving some thought into not using the five star system and doing something way different. I was actually thinking of doing a color system in which I assign certain meaning to some colors. However, even that comes down to the five star rating system. Everything I can think of ultimately converts to it.
What I would like to do is have a smaller amount of wiggle room within the five stars. There are so many times where I rate it as a three meaning that it is good, but then I think "But three seems kind of harsh, maybe I should give it an extra .5." Maybe it's because I am naturally a pretty nice guy who does not like to be harsh or unfair.
The bottom line is this: I overcomplicate things, and I have decided to define my rating criteria for you so that it is less of a complication for me:
1 Star: Avoid this movie! If you see this rating from me, it means I do not think this movie is worth seeing even when it comes on television. A movie will have this score if I could tell little to no effort was clearly placed. There may be some exceptions to this. For example, I might give a movie this score if I find it very offensive.
2 Stars: Wait for it to come on television. I would not go out of my way to watch this movie again, but if it is on television one day, it might be worth at least watching. There was some effort put into this movie, and it is often entertaining at moments. It is just not worth going out of your way to see.
3 Stars: Watch it on Netflix or Redbox it. It was a decent flick that had me entertained. I would probably see it again, and it is something I would recommend. However, do not worry about seeing this one in theatres. It is good, not great.
4 Stars: See it in theatres at matinee price. This is a very good movie. Go ahead and go see this one in theatres. However, the quality of the movie is not good enough to where I would recommend it at full price.
5 Stars: See this movie at full price. This movie is just an all around great film. By all means go see it. I would never advise someone to skip the matinee price because I believe in saving money. However, if you can only make it to a nightly showing, go ahead and see it. You will not feel like you have been cheated.
I will see how the ratings go according to this criteria I have set. I may one day actually combine the 4 and 5 stars just because there really is not a huge difference between seeing it at matinee and full price. However, I like keeping it at five stars because it gives you enough detail about how I thought the quality of the movie was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)