"Paranormal Activity 4" Review: The Activity Goes Full Hollywood

As an actual fan of the franchise (please don't judge me) I remember seeing the first Paranormal Activity film at a test screening months before the actual movie hit mainstream knowledge. And it actually scared the bejeezus out of me. Here was a movie I knew nothing about. It was low budget, starred unknowns, was created by an unknown, and did nothing special to win my affection as a genuinely good horror movie, other than tell a personal story with very clever mood-setting techniques. Everything we saw on screen seemed possible and real. There were no chainsaw wielding psychos with masks. No stupid death-traps. No impossible little Asian dead girls looking for vengeance and sadism. Through and through, it was a story that did what Hollywood typically doesn't do nowadays--fully immerse you into believing in a horrifying situation for 2 hours without the use of CGI or excessive gore. And it was that believability that made the movie scary. That's not to say that horror movies that do use Hollywood magic can't be good or great (this year's brilliant "The Cabin in the Woods" comes to mind as a successful horror film who's strength lies in the fact that it's excessive), but more often than not, with horror movies, the rule should be less is more. In my opinion the simpler the theatrical horror movie is, the scarier it has the potential to be because it has nothing to prove to the mainstream audiences except the strength and menace of its story (Think of such low budget gems like the first Evil Dead, the amazing works of Dario Argento, John Carpenter's Halloween, and other mockumentaries like Blair Witch or Cannibal Holocaust). And sadly through in the past 4 years, the very simple, personal story that was Paranormal Activity has become *sigh* a Hollywood franchise; a Halloween tentpole staple in Paramount's annual film slate--the new Saw essentially. That means bigger budget, cheaper scares, and less thought or care into the story. 

Now is the movie terrible? No. But I can safely say that of the entire series, this is the one film that literally does not contribute to the overall story constructively. In layman's terms--it's the most unnecessary. The story centers on 15-year old Alex and her family--her mother and father who have a great deal of real marital issues--and her 4 year old little brother Wyatt, and Alex's conveniently video tech-y boyfriend. When they meet their creepy 4-year old neighbor, Robbie, randomly and creepily playing in their backyard clubhouse one night, their quiet, normal, safe home ends up becoming a center of evil happenings, as they are unexpectedly forced to care for Robbie for a few days. Little by little, Robbie begins introducing Wyatt to contact with his "imaginary friend" Toby, and things go from bad to worse from there. Now the second movie acted as a mid-quel of sorts to the first movie, introducing us further into the mythology of why and what the situation was with Katie (Katie Featherson), and most importantly, introducing us to the character of Hunter, the first born male in Katie and Christy's families. The third movie was a prequel, introducing us to how the situation with the demon came to be, and what it has to do with Hunter from the second film. But this fourth movie tells us nothing, honestly. No shocking revelations that contribute to the mythology of the series. If this particular entry was never made, it honestly wouldn't affect the established series and its mythology in any way. Even worse, actually, we get a series that raises many more questions than it answers. For example (and trying my hardest to avoid spoilers), after a startling revelation is revealed about one of the characters, you end up wondering how he ended up switching families, but are given no explanation. And another example ends up being that we randomly end up losing an important character halfway through the movie, questioning the character's very existence and true identity--who exactly is that character and where did he ended up going? No answer there. Instead of a solid entry that expands the on ideas originally established in 3 other films, we simply get a confusing tangent story involving characters we've seen before with mostly the same techniques.

Additionally, being that said techniques have essentially happened twice before, the shocks and jumping points end up becoming super expected and predictable. Are some of them pretty effective? Sure. There are very eerie scenes involving silhouettes in motion under the glowing tracking dots of a Kinect system (for the record I'm happy I'm a PS3 man, and after this movie, that's not going to change ever), and a really fantastic scene involving a closed garage and a running car. But ultimately, this is everything we've seen before only more tame, more forced, and clearly professionally manufactured. A few scenes towards the end involving Katie end up going a little heavy with the CG effects. And a few cheap "invisible" attacks end up coming across as horror cliches we've seen in better movies (think sleeping girl floating above bed from the Exorcist, but much more pointless). Completely gone are the simple scares involving fishing line and baby powder. Now we have a fully manufactured, unrealistic soulless "Hollywood" franchise entry, like so many others before it. And sadly, considering that I wasn't sold on the manufactured "illusion" that was presented to me, I'll honestly be sleeping just fine tonight.

The performances overall are pretty solid. Kathryn Newton, who plays Alex, has some really challenging scenes compared to the rest of the cast, and she fares well throughout. And Brady Allen, who plays Robbie, is particularly chilling. But overall, one doesn't go to these movies expecting any sort of Oscar winning performances, so in this case they don't really matter.

In sum, it really ends up being disappointing getting a cash-cow entry into an otherwise consistently solid franchise that started with a mere hundred-thousand dollar story. Instead of saying "Oh! So that's why" for most scenes, I just ended up saying "why" throughout the entire film. Now Paramount can take my money for Paranormal 5 if the next entry (and that's most likely a given) in the franchise manages to move things forward. But until then, consider me underwhelmed, as the studio continues to flog the horse corpse that is Paranormal Activity.

Overall Rating: C

PS: My cover photo is a picture of the adorable actor who played Wyatt in the movie. He and his parents were at the screening I attended, and he completely got mobbed by people requesting to take photos. Enjoy! 

"Smashed" Review: One Tequila, Two Tequila, Three Tequila, Bored!

There have already been several movies about the subject matter of alcoholism and beating addiction in general. While not nearly as abundant as, say, superhero films, biopics, or tales of alien invasions, there have been more than enough to at least facilitate a template of sorts, spanning back to classics like "Days of Wine and Roses," to the more recent films like the turgid "28 Days" with everyone's favorite sweetheart, Sandy Bullock. And while the general consensus seems to more or less be that these films are often hit and miss, I think it's safe to say they all eventually at least follow convention at one point or another, no matter how much the filmmakers attempt to break it.

Consider said template:
Person A has an alcohol problem. Person A experiences a semi-traumatic event caused by their alcoholism. Person A takes measures, either forced or self-appointed, to get clean. There's a scene with an AA support group, the meeting of a sponsor. A scene with a relapse, and an emotional breakdown because of it, followed by a really huge cathartic confrontation with Person B, a person who plays a significant role in Person A's life, and keeps dragging them back into addiction. Then Person A takes measures to finally stay clean, leaving the audience to hope for the best.

Off the top of my head, I can name 2 movies in 1 second that follow that template, essentially beat-for-beat: The aforementioned "Wine and Roses" and "Smashed".

And therein lies the biggest weakness of "Smashed."

I was fortunate enough to attend a showing with a post-screening Q&A writers/director and the film's star, Mary Elizabeth Winstead. And while I am grateful they took the time to discuss the film with us, it actually made me dislike the movie a bit more. The films writers and director Susan Burke and James Ponsoldt emphasized how they had so much trouble relating to other films about alcohol addiction and decided to create a movie unconventional from other films about addiction. They stated they wanted to prioritize the romance over the message. However the film does not do this. And apart from a few attempts at humor, there is very little this film does to break convention. It is unfortunately play by play a predictable, melodramatic portrayal of the issue that beats you over the head with the issue. So if the writers/director were intending to do anything different here, mission failed. Story-wise, beat for beat, everything follows the above safe template, which is quite rudimentary at this point on the whole, and does so in a fashion that's actually overly safe and quite over-the-top.

Winstead, for instance, is getting a lot of awards-buzz for her portrayal of Kate. And while it perhaps is her best role to date given her resume (which includes a very bland performance in Scott Pilgrim and a few supporting roles in Die Hard 4 and horrible Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter), I can honestly say, that buzz is really not merited  In my opinion it was actually incredibly melodramatic and over-the-top. When she's drunk, she either acts overly irresponsible--portraying your stereotypical caricature of the drunk "whoo" girl you see at bars in plenty of comedies--or completely over-dramatic with emotions flaring at all extremes--not unlike any other actor who's ever portrayed a recovering alcoholic. When she's sober and attempting to recover, she excels a bit more, playing a very haunted performance of someone desperate to change. However, with both sides of the character, how it was written, and Winstead's portrayal, the audience is explicitly being told what the character is feeling and thinking. Rather than making the character realistic or making any attempts at a more nuanced, human performance to allow moviegoers to feel, emote, or relate to the character, we are explicitly told what to think because the character and role require Winstead to flail at the screen shouting, crying, etc. in very on-the-nose ways. Winstead's performance in her major catharsis scene with co-star Aaron Paul towards the final third of the movie, in particular, is something we've seen written so many times, portrayed in the exact same manner--such that the audience literally hears the conflict rather than feeling it--that it literally comes across as (for lack of a better term) hokey. By that point any connection I had with the character is lost because it all feels so artificial and textbook.

Paul comes across slightly better in the film, in my opinion, playing Kate's even more irresponsible husband, Charlie. Charlie's character is of course the Person B in the template. The bad influence who's presence makes Person A keep regressing from rehabilitation. His chemistry with Winstead is quietly sweet most of the time. And the worry Paul conveys when expressing his fears about losing his wife is much more subtle than even Winstead's more quiet somber moments of reflection. However, way the character was written--with the slacker, irresponsible, party-boy mentality--pretty much forces a talented actor like Paul to retain type, and play Jesse Pinkman from Breaking Bad. And while I love Aaron Paul as Jesse Pinkman, the truth is this is not Breaking Bad, and isn't supposed to be Breaking Bad. So while he may have been suited for this role, admittedly I feel it's a bit of a waste of an actor capable of more.

The rest of the supporting case does a serviceable job with the script that was given to them. Both Megan Mullally and Nick Offerman play more serious roles than we're used to seeing them play, and do a good job with both. While Octavia Spencer does an okay job of portraying a the necessary-to-every-addiction-story sponsor. Of course there are just so any times we can see the homely wise, maternal, African American lady on-screen before it comes off as a tired archetype we avidly expect to show up and dispense wisdom when convenient--particularly ideal when it's the role of an alcoholic's sponsor.

Performances and predictability aside, one of my biggest complaints about the film is also how preachy it comes across. And that might be due to the melodrama of it all. This is another thing Burke and Ponsoldt explicitly stated during the Q&A session that they were seeking to avoid, but something that they also ultimately fail at. The movie really does come across as an extended PSA-D.A.R.E ad on the dangers of alcohol addiction. Alcohol addiction is bad. We get that. Don't beat your audience over the head with the message. If you want the audience to accept the message, give us something real and human. Not something fabricated and, for lack of a better term, "Hollywood". Otherwise the lack of honesty is just going to end up alienating your audience with something that doesnt feel genuine or sincere in its message or the execution of your message. Ultimately, the saddest thing about "Smashed" is the fact that it contradicts everything the filmmakers sought out to accomplish. And at the end of the day, that's unfortunately just bad filmmaking.

Overall Grade: C