So???? - Do you think I'm spot on with my review or do you think I'm way off base? Let me know by checking "You are correct, sir" or "You are an idiot."
You can also give the movie a 'star' rating. Let me know how you thought of the film by rating it yourself! Just give a 1,2,3,4, or 5 star review. As always, feel free to leave your mark in the comments for each entry.
Tell the world about my site! You can now link to any of my review by choosing one of the social media buttons at the bottom of each post!
There isn't much in Paranormal Activity 2 that you didn't get in Paranormal Activity... it's pretty much the same tricks that get you to jump. What it does have (besides an awesome dog and an adorable baby) is a little bit of a story; an area where the first installment was lacking.
It does a great job of connecting the two films, which was a pleasant surprise since I thought there would be little to no connective tissue, but it also has a very anti-climactic ending which, of course, is open ended enough for a third installment.
If you're looking for something to make you jump, or as was in my case, you're just curious to see what happens next, definitely check out Paranormal Activity 2. Just try not to expect too much in the way of originality.
I don't know, I guess I'm a sucker for the whole "Mocumentary" horror movie thing. I still like The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity... Quarantine was terrible, but I kinda dug The Last Exorcism.
The problem with most of these types of movies is the build-up. There needs to be the perfect amount of time to give you the information that you need and to lull you into a false sense of security, but not so much time that you get bored or frustrated. The Last Exorcism really pulls that off.
The acting is realistic and the shaky cam is effective. This one will really creep you out if you give in to it.
Paper Heart was released in theatre on 8/7/09 and on DVD and Blu-ray on 12/1/09.
Paper Heart is a strange mixture of documentary and fiction. The film starts out as a documentary in which comedian CharlyneYi travels cross-country to ask people from different backgrounds to define 'love'. When Charlyne, who has never been in love and who doesn't believe in love, meets fellow performer Michael Cera, sparks begin to fly and the movie transforms into a "documentary" about a girl (Yi) who doesn't believe in love, grappling with emotions that she doesn't understand and the effects her issues have on those around her.
What's super interesting about this film is that Yi and Cera were actually dating at the time (I'm not aware of their current relationship status). Many of the tender moments between the two required little acting, but the awkward moments that (for the most part) dissolve when you really get to know someone are all so natural that you really might think this was an actual documentary if I hadn't ruined the effect for you by telling you that the whole thing was scripted... sorry, by the way.
If you're looking for an interesting, down-to-earth, funny romantic comedy/mock-documentary (or mockumentary as we call it in the biz) give Paper Heart a rent. It'll make you smile.
Don't try to fool us with your fake ass "clinical studies", horribly acted "interviews" and mildly frightening "actual footage". We're not buying it and a dramatization of the fictional events isn't necessary. We certainly don't need to see the "actual footage" and the dramatization side by side using a split screen.
Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again... MillaJovavich CANNOT act. Stop putting her in movies. Even bad ones. If the only actress you can get is MillaJovavich, DON'T MAKE THE MOVIE.
One of the things that gets me pumped about going to the movies, is when a film maker has a truly original idea. With at least 250 movies being released each year, it's an enormous feat to say the least. It's not really fair, but since originality is so lacking I can be harsh in my opinion when a new idea is brought to the screen. First, because I would hope that the innovator is also a visionary and that they would go out of their way to put the best representation of their story on the screen. More importantly, while it may have been their idea, it's a waste of originality if it sucks. No one else can make that movie without people comparing it to the original film, even if they think the rip-off was a superior version. When you have a new idea, DO IT GOOD!
They didn't do District 9 good. My biggest problem is how it devolved from a really good idea, with the potential for cultural exploration and social commentary, into a brainless action movie. Also, realizing that it might have been counter intuitive even for me (the critic), they probably should have cast a big name action star in the role. I didn't like/believe the actor in the lead role and I definitely think it would have benefited from the star power. Finally, there were several plot issues that just didn't make sense and some that needed to be fleshed out more and saved for the sequel.
District 9 is an extremely original film with great special effects, but they really dropped the ball when it came to the story and "human" portions the film's execution (writing, acting, and directing).
Bruno is the raunchiest R rated movie I've seen. I understand that it originally received an NC-17 and I'm having a hard time imagining what was cut to give it the R.
I'm telling you to see it because it's funny, but this is much less satirical than Borat was. In Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen's character was a foreigner that was in no way, shape, or form an accurate depiction of what people from Khazakstan are actually like. What made the movie so shocking was the fact that Americans completely bought into the fact that a modern Khazaki(?) didn't know how to use a toilet, would carry a rooster in a bowling bag, and would wash his clothes in the Hudson river. The intolerance of Americans shone through like a beacon to xenophobes, racists and homophobes. The movie wasn't antisemitic, the Americans in the movie and in the theatre watching, agreeing with the the concepts in the movie are antisemitic.
The problem with Bruno is that while Borat was seemingly never intended to mock foreigners, Bruno is mocking homosexuals to a certain extent. The stereotypes of foreigners were not accurate, but in order to fully embarrass his victims, Bruno is an overexaggeration of gay stereotypes that, while I do believe that it's OK to laugh at...
... I also think it might be setting the "gay movement" back some by giving homophobes, and even rational minded heterosexuals reason to look at people like Bruno and think that that's how gay people really are.
I liked watching Bruno, it was funny and shocking, but I do think that this one was much more scripted than Borat. Also, I don't care one way or the other about offending anyone, whether the be straight or gay. I think I was just expecting a more innocent "fun-poking" (no pun intended) of American intolerance. Instead, this time we got people giving honest, appropriate reactions to inappropriate behavior.
