REVIEW: Paranormal Activity 3

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011): Dir. Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost. Written by: Christopher B. Landon. Starring: Chloe Csengery, Jessica Tyler Brown, Christopher Nicholas Smith and Sprague Grayden. Rated R (Language and some bedroom foreplay). Running time: 84 minutes. 

2 stars (out of four)

Paranormal Activity 3 is a clumsy movie, an ungainly series of more or less detached scenes dutifully strung together into a something that only roughly resembles a narrative. The premise, warmed over from the last two installments, will be familiar to anyone who has seen one or both of those films: a spectral presence visits upper-middle-class suburbia and its phantom interactions with creaky doors and kitchenware are recorded with admirable thoroughness by a man with a camera fetish.

The footage of these paranormal shenanigans has been found and conveniently edited for us into a manageable 80-odd minutes though who found and edited the material is a mystery the film is not interested in solving. The opening scene reveals that the videotapes we are watching were stolen from the family in Paranormal Activity 2’s house so perhaps the phantom itself has gone through the trouble of editing the film! Or perhaps I’m asking too many questions.

The year is 1988 and the house haunted is that of Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown), younger versions of the hapless heroines from Paranormal Activity 1 and 2, respectively. You will recall that the events of those films were not Katie and Kristi’s first interactions with the ghostly creature. The demon had previously plagued their childhood and the details of that initial encounter are the focus of this film.

The man with the camera this time is Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith), the boyfriend of the girls’ mother (Sprague Grayden). When young Kristi’s nighttime chats with an imaginary friend named Toby coincide with some unusual occurrences in the house, Dennis decides to set up a few tripods and use his totally neat VHS camcorder to get to the bottom of things.

What follows is a standard collection of “Boo!” moments, two of which are fake-outs so uninspired they actually consist of characters jumping in front of the camera and shouting “Boo!” These moments are effective, I suppose, but offer little that can’t be replicated by a visit to a haunted house. Clearly the filmmakers want to develop the mythology of the series (thus the prequel for this outing) but if this is the case there needs to be more intrigue and less cheap scares.

I don’t mean to say that an elaborate plot is necessary or even wanted for this sort of film. There is nothing inherently wrong with spooking audiences just for the fun of it. But there is a fine line between tension and tedium and too often PA3 confuses the two. For lengthy stretches of the film, nothing happens. Yes, this means you may be caught off guard when a scare comes but the effect is a little like lulling someone to sleep only to shake them violently when their eyelids shut. There is no craft or skill involved.

I will say that the last fifteen minutes are not awful. There is a decently choreographed and minimally annoying use of first-person shaky-cam (carefully edited to look like one long take) but the sequence stands alone. It is one scene of momentarily effective filmmaking, solid technique stranded without a narrative.

If you enjoyed the second film there is no overwhelming reason to skip this one. In a number of subtle ways, PA3 is more inventive than its predecessor but it is also less satisfying. The film is a mostly joyless execution of sudden movements and loud bangs, and ends abruptly without really going anywhere.

There is one other part of the film I want to mention, something that has become an odd trend in all the Paranormal Activity movies. There are scenes in this film when we watch Dennis watching the footage from the previous night. For what purpose would he film himself at such a moment? When would he ever need to go back and watch this? It doesn’t make much sense in the context of the film and isn’t any fun to watch. Part of me is tempted to interpret these scenes as some sort of odd, misplaced postmodern comment on a culture of pervasive recording and watching. Mostly though, I suspect it is simply misguided filmmaking.

- Steve Avigliano, 10/29/11

REVIEW: The Ides of March

The Ides of March (2011): Dir. George Clooney. Written by: George Clooney, Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon. Based on the play, Farragut North by Beau Willimon. Starring: Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, Jeffrey Wright and Evan Rachel Wood. Rated R (language and some sexuality). Running time: 101 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

In the months building up to a presidential election, the 24-hour news machine can feel so much like entertainment – politicians debate on live TV and commentators subsequently debate the candidates’ worth with sensationalized talking points and colorful graphics – that a film about the primary election process may almost feel redundant. Released in time to coincide with the growing media hullabaloo that marks the start of the 2012 presidential race, The Ides of March, a soapy political thriller directed by George Clooney, is less interested in the candidates of its fictional political world and the issues they discuss than the web of campaign managers and advisors who pull the strings behind the scenes.

At the center of that web for Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) is a talented young campaign manager named Stephen Myers (Ryan Gosling) and Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a campaign veteran and Myers’s boss. These two are responsible for getting the aforementioned media machine to work in Morris’s favor – that is to say, their favor – and ensuring a victory at the polls. Assisting them is a team of hard-working interns, including Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood), daughter of DNC chairman Jack Stearns (Gregory Itzin).

The film focuses on a coveted primacy race in Ohio where Morris holds a tentative lead over Arkansas Senator Ted Pullman (Michael Mantell). An endorsement from one Senator Thompson (Jeffrey Wright), a powerful figure in the Democratic Party, would all but seal the nomination for Morris. That is, unless Pullman secures Thompson’s support first.

Posing a threat to the Governor and his team is Pullman’s campaign manager, Tom Duffy (a wonderfully gruff Paul Giamatti), who has his eyes on Myers. He wants Myers to jump ship on Morris’s campaign and work for him, but Myers is an idealist. He believes in Morris. This idealism prompts the derision of Ida Horowicz (Marisa Tomei), a New York Times writer who pries Myers and Zara for leads about their campaign strategies. She reminds Myers that Morris is a politician like any other and dismisses his faith in Morris as little more than starry-eyed naiveté.

Clooney’s Morris is a bit of an idealized figure. A staunch liberal, Morris proclaims that he is not a religious man but believes in the people’s right to practice any and all faiths. He calls for an end to America’s addiction to foreign oil, for industry-minded emphasis on burgeoning technologies, and for a revised economic system that ensures Americans pay their “fair share” of taxes. He is a frank, good-humored, sane and reasonable man. He is, in other words, an utterly unelectable figure in anything resembling the real world. Morris is a sort of Übermensch for Clooney, a romantic vision of his ideal politician. The improbability that such a politician could ever make it as far as Morris does in pursuit of the Presidency is not addressed in The Ides of March.

This unlikelihood is not so important to the film’s success, however, because Clooney’s ultimate message transcends political partisanship. His focus is not on the warring ideals that are currently causing our political system to sputter and stall but on the even dirtier infighting between career-minded advisors.

In its second half, The Ides of March flirts with soap opera levels of blackmailing and dirty laundry, which serves both to widen the film’s appeal to less politically-savvy audience members while also limiting the credibility of its arguments. Clooney need not go to such overdramatic lengths to illustrate how American politics are driven by personal ambition, though such sensational additions do make for an exciting movie.

As a director Clooney is sharp and confident and he stays focused on his cold perspective of the political game. The film’s visual style complements this; steely grays and blues are offset by the red and white stripes that necessarily pervade the background of a given shot.

The cast, it should go without saying, is exceptional. Philip Seymour Hoffman gives lessons on how to command the screen with characteristic effortlessness, and the ubiquitous Ryan Gosling continues to make a strong case for being the most reliable star of his age. (Your move, Leo.)

So although The Ides of March is a more than capable film, executed with skill and efficiency, it is also a difficult film to embrace. Clooney presents an unforgivingly cynical portrait of American politics but offers little in the way of hope for the future. If one wants to stay in the business of politics, ideals must be compromised (or thrown violently out the window as the case may be). Such news should hardly come as a revelation to anyone; what we need now are some suggestions on how to improve the state of things.

- Steve Avigliano, 10/10/11

REVIEW: 50/50

50/50 (2011): Dir. Jonathan Levine. Written by: Will Reiser. Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard, Anjelica Huston, Phillip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer. Rated R (Medicinal drug use, language and sexuality). Running time: 100 minutes.

3 ½ stars (out of four)

50/50 takes typically melodramatic material and, with keen emotional insight and a collection of strong performances, avoids the cheap sentimentality that often comes with a film about cancer. Largely a comedy, the film takes time for some well-earned tear-jerking scenes in its last third. A product of Judd Apatow’s extended family (frequent Apatow collaborator Evan Goldberg produced the film along with Seth Rogen, who also co-stars), 50/50 explores the bonds of friendship (call it a bromance if you must), romantic love and family when put under the strain of a debilitating disease.

Adam (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a young Seattleite who works in public radio with his best bud Kyle (Rogen). Adam and his girlfriend Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard) are entering the domestic stage of their relationship – she is flattered to learn he has made space for her clothes in one of his dresser drawers – though Kyle has some choice words regarding Rachel’s prudishness and Adam’s flagging sex life.

Still, life appears to be as good as it gets for a hip, well-dressed twentysomething such as Adam. That is, until he receives the unfortunate diagnosis from his doctor. He has a malignant tumor on his spine. The news creates serious ripples in his personal life and each of those closest to him react differently.

Kyle is perhaps even more distraught than Adam but, like a true friend, he is quick to provide distractions. Does Adam realize, for example, how easy picking up chicks will be when they hear he has cancer? Not to mention the medicinal marijuana. Rogen is in goofy best friend mode here (something he does exceedingly well) and his bumbling stoner cadence is just right to diffuse potential melodrama and lighten the mood for his pal.

The other members of Adam’s support circle are less reliable. Rachel may not be as prepared for the difficulties of chemotherapy as she claims and Adam’s overbearing mother (Anjelica Huston) only makes him more anxious with her persistent maternal worries.

Two older gentlemen Adam meets in chemotherapy, Alan (Phillip Baker Hall) and Mitch (Matt Frewer), offer a more understanding perspective. They know how painful the treatment can be and assuage Adam’s fears with jokes and homemade weed macaroons.

Adam also starts seeing a hospital therapist, Katherine (Anna Kendrick), a doctorate student still new to treating actual patients. She accurately identifies Adam’s reactions to the disease by pointing out the stages of shock and anger to him but her textbook approach is hardly comforting. Indeed, the two learn from one another and tiptoe around the patient/therapist relationship while laying the groundwork for a possible romance.

Kendrick, who received an Oscar nomination for her performance as a calculating but ultimately naive businesswoman in Up in the Air, plays a softer shade of that character here. She has a wonderful way of using the tics and fidgets of uncomfortable social interactions to flesh out a character. Underneath the cutesy-perky energy of her characters, she finds the tension between their emotional vulnerability and the sterile professionalism they have been told to exhibit.

As a lead, Joseph Gordon-Levitt skillfully navigates the film’s tonal shifts between comedy and drama. His shell-shocked response to the diagnosis works well as a comedic foil for Seth Rogen but Gordon-Levitt also has the chops to handle the heavier material. Adam’s silence is punctuated by outbursts of rage and fear late in the film as the gravity of his situation becomes clearer.

50/50 deftly examines the emotional turmoil of cancer treatment though it mostly does so through the familiar mechanisms of a romantic comedy structure. All of the pieces are in place – the best friend, the waning relationship and the new romantic prospect on the rise – but they are more effective here than in similar films because the emotions are authentic. Either 50/50 is a heartfelt drama that conforms to Hollywood conventions or a rom-com imbued with surprising genuineness. Whichever way you prefer to look at it, this is an entertaining and thoughtful film about the unexpected complications life throws our way and the strength of human connection in difficult times.

- Steve Avigliano, 10/2/11