There have been two movies as of late that have gotten a lot of attention for one reason or another. One is a tribute to the King of Pop, the one and only Michael Jackson, while the other has been declared the "scariest movie ever made." I found that only one of these two actually lived up to the hype. However, since they are shorter and, while not undermining the artistic merit of either of these films, less deep productions, I decided to write shorter reviews for them both.

This Is It

Love him or hate him, but Michael Jackson was one of a kind. From his roots in Gary, Indiana, where he started the Jackson 5 with the rest of his family to the days of Thriller and Off The Wall and until his tragic, confused death, no other individual ever made such an impact on pop music as MJ. As a tribute to his legacy, This Is It seems like a money-grabbing attempt at the countless legions of fans who want to see what Michael's final days were like. However, much to my surprise, this movie turned out to be surprisingly enjoyable and perhaps the best tribute that could be made.

This Is It's premise is simple:  take the footage of Michael's rehearsals for his planned reunion tour which was filmed all just weeks, days or mere hours before his death, and add some interviews and stylish editing to top it off. Honestly though, it works. The movie can be labeled a concert film considering that about 75% of the on-screen action is singing or dancing but it keeps you engaged throughout with great pacing and effects. 

The music is the star here, and it does not disappoint. MJ sings most of the songs with an energy that strictly contradicts his supposed sickly state of the time, considering he hits most of the high notes with relative ease. Basically all of his classics are here, with "Beat It", "Billie Jean", "Human Nature", "Thriller", "Wanna Be Startin Something" and many more. For songs such as "Thriller", filmed sequences in graveyards were filmed to be used as a backdrop for the concert action. We see the filming process and the intricacies involved, though obviously most of the detail will probably be included in the Ultra Super Collector's Edition of the film which is bound to be released.  The "Smooth Criminal" scene is fantastic, blending scenes from Humphrey Bogart's film Gilda with the, well, smooth criminal that is MJ. At the end, or even in the middle, of some songs Michael will stop to note something he wants changed or improved upon. He was always a perfectionist and this film truly shows how he wanted everything to be just right for his final shows. 

There is no look at Michael's troubled life or death in this film whatsoever. It is all about the music, and the lives he touched throughout his life. Interviews with backup dancers and musicians all gush over what Michael brought to their lives and the effect he made on them.  The director, Kenny Ortega, obviously saw the greatness in Michael as well and worked hard to make this concert be the best it could be. Unfortunately, it never happened. After watching this rehearsal footage you can only wonder what could have been. Seriously, this would have been one of the most elaborate, and probably best, tours ever done if it could have followed through. But, in the end, we are left with this tribute alone, and it achieves its job and then some by reminding us all of Michael Jackson's legacy in a positive, loving light.

Final Verdict:
4 out of 5 Stars

Paranormal Activity

Well, there is not much to say about this film besides the fact that I was disappointed. I do not know why I even anticipated much, though the claim that this was the "scariest movie ever made" definitely enticed me into seeing it. However, I never was genuinely scared or really spooked. I was interested in it, but not in a very attached way.

Basically, Paranormal Activity is the story of a couple in Los Angeles who experience various "hauntings" in their bedroom at night. The boyfriend installs a camera and documents everything Blair Witch-style, as the whole movie is in the handicam format. I am not an advocate of that type of filmmaking (Cloverfield was not a big hit for me) but, in this case, it does work to some extent. With the lack of any real special effects and the bare bones budget of $15,000, Paranormal Activity is taking the raw approach and an acknowledged, cheap camera can get the job done. Once the movie gets going (there are no opening titles or credits), it becomes very formulaic. A night passes by and we see the strange footage of things that happened. Micah (the boyfriend) and Katie (the...girlfriend) observe the footage and freak out. It is quite a bore for the first half or so as nothing really occurs of much significance besides an extremely cheesy appearance by an actor playing an expert at psychological and spiritual affairs like the ones the two are experiencing. I will not spoil anything else that happens in this film but I will say that I never was scared in a way that I anticipated. This seems to be a trend too; only the really, really sensitive will be genuinely freaked out by this. The ending is a bit of a disappointment too. Too anticlimactic, gimmicky and cliched to leave a good impression.

Overall, Paranormal Activity is a movie that really benefits from our current forms of communication (Facebook, Twitter, etc), because it has been making rounds on the Internet and claiming the spoils with a near $90 million domestic gross as of this writing. This may be the most profitable movie ever made in the long run. Still, Paranormal Activity is a shallow film that will be all the buzz now but never thought of again a few months down the line. It may be worth seeing it to just experience it, but the experience really is nothing special.

Final Verdict:
2.5 Stars Out of 5 

 *Disclaimer: This review may contain slight spoilers. However, the extent to which plot lines are revealed is about equal to a reading of the original children's novel. However, the following is as much a review as it is an analysis. I equate certain events in the film to what there true meaning may be. It is a joy for the viewer to find these by themselves, but reading some thoughts here will do no harm. But to anyone with no intent on seeing the movie, there is no harm in reading this (and maybe you'll change your mind). Nonetheless, enjoy.* 
 

Where The Wild Things Are:
Directed by Spike Jonze
Released in 2009

"Well, that was underwhelming." That was the first thought I had when I left the theater after seeing Where The Wild Things Are. The movie lacked focus, it did not pack the punch of emotion like I expected it to and the ending seemed abrupt. I was ready to cast the film aside and call it a disappointment. That was until I gave it some time to sit, to digest. The greatness of some films are not always apparent from the initial impressions; upon leaving Inglourious Basterds I knew I had seen a mad masterpiece but I didn't appreciate the perfection that is Dr. Strangelove until a second viewing. Where The Wild Things Are is no exception; beneath the cuddly, kid movie surface lies a film that is one of the deepest and emotional tales I have seen in years.

Initially, let me explain the general premise to the uninitiated:  Where The Wild Things Are is based off the beloved children's book by Maurice Sendak, released in 1963 and featured in the childhood of millions of American children since. The book is only 10 sentences long and, thus, hard to adapt to a full-length feature film. However, screenwriters Spike Jonze (also the director) and Dave Eggers take the overall premise of the picture book as well as the aesthetic look and make something entirely their own. This film is dark. Children may be fooled into believing that the playful creatures that are featured in the trailer only serve as one-dimensional playful objects but that is a false assumption. They occasionally look very frightening, act violently and behave in such intemperate ways that may even cause nightmares among the youth. Still, if a child has an open mind and a knack for analysis (I want to meet this kid), he or she will thoroughly enjoy this film.

 
In terms of plot, Where The Wild Things Are is the story about Max, played by the aptly named Max Records, who lives an imaginative yet lonely life at home. His sister has miserable friends who tear down his ice sculptures and she only looks on with mild disapproval, not acting or even being apologetic. Max's mom, with the ever reliable Catherine Keener at the helm, is a caricature of a mother that sadly exists in the real world but would make any mother, despite some similarities with this character, cringe. She is a divorcee or single mom from unknown circumstances, though it is fairly sure that the father walked out on the family early on. During a date with a man played by Mark Ruffalo (featured for maybe 40 seconds of screen time), she ignores Max despite his incessant pleads for attention. This culminates to Max embarrassing himself and his mother in front of this "date," much to mom's chagrin, and Max fleeing his house without looking back. All the while, he is dressed up in a wolf suit. Looking for liberation, he finds a sailboat and takes it to a faraway island where he encounters the Wild Things. They are about to eat him when he reveals to them his "magical powers" that are so powerful that he could make "people's heads explode." Clearly a manufactured lie, this excuse is bought by the creatures and they crown him king. From then on, the plot is not the focus.

The problem I had with the film upon conclusion was how it just meandered along, with no general concrete plot beneath it all. Max and the Wild Things have fun by engaging in a "Rumpus" or having a "dirt clod" fight, all featuring breaking stuff or throwing things in some way. There are scenes between these events such as the building of a large fort "where only the things you want to happen, would happen." There is never any sense of progression; the film's approach is very freewheeling and loose. However, this is revealed to not be the film's true value or even necessity.

 
Where The Wild Things Are's weapon is symbolism. It wields it often and with the grace of a poet.  A second viewing of the film may be mandatory to truly appreciate the detail and effort that went into it. The Wild Things are comprised of seven different creatures:  humble, loving Ira (Forest Whittaker), the mute and menacing Bull (Michael Berry Jr.), Judith, the pessimistic and rebellious one (an excellent Catherine O'Hara), the sympathetic yet plainly pathetic goat creature Alexander (Paul Dano), the consistently loyal Douglas (Chris Cooper), the affectionate and motherly figure KW (Lauren Ambrose) and, last but not least, the leading figure, Carol (James Gandolfini). These different creatures all represent a different aspect of Max's mind, thus showing the multiple personalities he has. He finds Carol to be the closest like him, accepting him without hesitation from the start. Max also sees the worst of himself in Carol, shown by the hostility between them near the end. Carol goes on anger tantrums, tearing apart their houses which reminds Max of his similar situations at home when he wrecked his own house. This bond proves to be the film's strongest point, as evidenced by the bittersweet conclusion. When Max sails back home, Carol runs to him in an emotionally devastated state, finally cognizant of the harm his ignorance has caused. He is unable to embrace Max for one last time but emits a howl of such shaky sentimental stature that only tears or ignorant laughs from the audience will result. As Max sails into the sunset, Carol gets a last look at the boy who revealed the best and worst in him. The analogy here is how Max's father recklessly abandoned his family but did not realize his mistake until it was too late. The father misses his family dearly now, just as Carol's tears show, but will never be able to partake in that final endearment. Upon realizing this revelation, I was torn. Not in a long time has a film hit me with such an emotional blow.

 
Truly, the film can be endlessly perused and analyzed for small details that carry significance. And they are there. Watch KW's introduction of the mysterious Bob and Terry and try not to think about the mother's date with that special individual or even the sister's unworthy friends. Better yet, Carol goes on a tantrum and reacts violently against Douglas who spouts the best line of the film regarding his "favorite arm." That, again, relates to Max's real world and Carol's pathetic excuses only make Max realize how immature he has become. The final salute to childhood will strike a chord with the high school crowd as shown by my thoughts. We are stuck in the middle between child and adult, not knowing when it is safe to set sail for the life of responsibility that lies ahead. But, shown by Max's journey, we all have the bravery to take that leap of faith. Clearly, there is no doubt that symbolism is this film's source of significance and emotion. Anyone who ponders the events of the screen will ultimately gain much satisfaction from realizing what was behind the cuddly exterior.

 
But what an exterior it is. Shot entirely in live action, Where The Wild Things Are takes an innovative approach at CGI through its natural blend of fantastical creatures in a real world. The Wild Things were filmed in costume with a static face; this was later changed when the voice talent was added and the faces emoted digital yet very lifelike feelings. They contain a stunning level of detail and emotional range that captures the nuances of every happy, sad or anger-filled moment. Complementing this triumph in imagery is the beautiful cinematography. Filmed in Australia, Where The Wild Things Are takes place on a wonderful island with great variety shown by the lush forests yet stark deserts adjacent to each other. While logically impossible (this is a fantasy story after all), this antithesis in environment only amplifies the beauty of everything else.

In the end, Where The Wild Things Are is a unique, fascinating film. Never before have I had such a 180° turnaround on a film from utter disappointment to unhinged love. The characters, and the true meaning that lies beneath them all, are fully developed even when they may seem shallow initially. The absolutely stunning visual work only helps the film's cause in the end as well, portraying the film's message about childhood even more effectively. I am not disappointed by Where The Wild Things Are:  I love it. Maybe my irrational dismissal of the film without truly comprehending what I saw suggests I have some growing up to do myself.


Final Verdict:
4.5/5 Stars  
 

For a movie that is poking fun at the current horror movie genre, Drag Me To Hell ends up being one of the best horror movies in recent memory. Its mix of campy violence, witty humor and genuine scares make Drag Me To Hell an entertaining, compelling film.

The overall premise is simple: Christine, played by Alison Lohman with a full committal to her role, is living a nice life until Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) comes along. This old, gypsy woman requests Christine for an extension on her mortgage. Christine decides to deny the mortgage in hopes of a promotion but Ganush, in her fury, casts a dark spell upon the poor girl, the curse of the Lamia. The Lamia stalks its victims for three days until finally bringing them down to eternal hell. Christine has no plans of eternal suffering and goes to great lengths to rid her of the curse. The film is brilliantly paced and just moves; this film will hook you from the beginning and not let go until the end. And what a finale; I could not have imagined a better way to end this movie and it combines equal parts humor and pure terror to leave the viewer shocked as well as satiated.

In a horror movie like this one, acting is not a field where this film will usually, or even necessarily have to, excel in. However, Drag Me To Hell has an excellent lineup lead by the lead actress, Alison Lohman. As an innocent girl with a (literal) hellish burden put upon her, she performs her part with a great mix of typical horror film naivety, pure terror and pissed-off badassery. Lohman even goes to disgusting lengths such as swallowing maggots in her full dedication to her role. Christine's boyfriend is played by Justin Long and is just what you would expect from him. He doesn't really believe his girlfriend's struggles and has bigot parents to boot. This role is not new for him but Justin Long is a likable actor and he fits the role with ease. As well, Lorna Raver as Mrs. Ganush is excellent without a doubt. Her makeup transforms her into a menacing, demented gypsy who haunts Christine at every turn. There is even an extended fight scene that involves her brawling with young Lohman. Clearly, Mrs. Raver put a lot of effort into her role. Another prevalent actor in this film is Dileep Rao who plays Rham Jas, the seer who can see Christine's troubles. He is a likable character who only has limited screen time but ends up being one of the few, real good guys in the film. Basically, the acting is better than expected and a big part of why this film is better than most horror films this decade.

However, what really sets Drag Me To Hell apart is its style. There is a certain campiness to it that was clearly the brainchild of Sam Raimi, the director, looking back to his early days of Evil Dead. The violence, especially for a PG-13 film, is shocking yet somewhat hilarious. At one point, Christine spouts blood from her nose like a fountain, with people around her viewing it as a minor distraction. Clearly, the violence is meant to amuse, not repulse. That being said, there are various forms of blood and bile liquid flowing throughout. Furthermore, its self-deprecating look at the horror genre actually lends it an advantage. Many situations are full of the typical cliches such as a dead flashlight, shadows under a door, or closet jump scares. It works though; this could be attributed to its excellent directing or driving pacing. It never plods along at a slow pace. Countering this humor and convention is real horror. There were many times throughout the film where I was actually creeped out by its Lamia spirit or Mrs. Ganush, even if I may have laughed at them afterward. All in all, it is very interesting how Drag Me To Hell blends comedy, parody and horror all into one creation that seems original as much as they may have been done before.

To sum up, Drag Me To Hell is a fun, wild film. It keeps you hooked, regaled and even spooked throughout with no time to breathe. Add in the surprisingly good acting and one of the best endings I have seen in recent memory and you've got one of the finest horror films of the decade.  
 
4/5

Zombieland does not reinvent the wheel. A hybrid of a zombie and romantic comedy, Zombieland takes a lot of influence from films before it such as Shaun of the Dead and even the similarly titled (as well the career launch pad for one of this film's leading actors) Adventureland. However, it works because of its execution. The cast - with a pleasant surprise - fit with one another in a practically flawless manner, and the comedy and action are very well-balanced.

Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is a kid on his own with a certain set of rules for surviving the zombie apocalypse. His OCD mentality is restricting but effective, as he has survived longer than most on Earth. He eventually runs into Tallahassee, played by Woody Harrelson, whose gun-ho approach strictly conflicts with his reserved attitude. Nonetheless, they join forces to survive until they run into the sly sisters, Wichitaw (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). Their uncertain motives put the two males down often, but Columbus knows he has an attraction for the older sister (Stone) and she does too. The chemistry between the two is very good and similar to the Eisenberg-Kristen Stewart relationship from Adventureland. From me, that is a compliment. Emma Stone, more commonly known as "Jules" from Superbad, is in a similar role here but brings her own sexy charm and back-stabbing attitude to make it a fun role. Abigail Breslin is in her best role since Little Miss Sunshine as a tough girl despite her small appearance. The real star of the show here, however, is Woody Harrelson. An underrated actor in many regards, Woody constantly brings a rough, humorous approach to almost all of his roles and this one is one of his finest. Tallahassee directly contrasts Columbus's conservative approach and that really highlights his talents. He will casually, yet brutally, take down a zombie, laugh at rednecks' obsession for guns, grow furious at a Hostess truck for lacking his ultimate treat, Twinkies and even grow emotional when his real reason for roaming the wastes of the US are revealed. This film has shined the much-deserved spotlight on Woody's career again, and the commercial and critical success this movie is experiencing can only foretell good things for his career once again. Overall, the casting in this film is spot-on and its finest aspect.

However, the joy and carnage this film conveys through its story and action are also very notable. The film starts out as a typical zombie comedy, with countless undead killing helpless humans while Columbus's narration explains what they did wrong and how he avoids their mistakes. The opening is actually pretty brutal, with plenty of appendages either decaying or being eaten, and the huge bursts of blood are not for the faint at heart. The credits sequence, played to Metallica's epic "For Whom The Bell Tolls", is similar to Watchmen's as it contains many slow-motion scenes of carnage while still conveying a pseudo "history" of the zombie events (more like a collage of action honestly). Once the romantic interests are introduced, however, this film takes a long break from zombie action all together and focuses mainly on its comedic laurels. To some, this may seem like an unwelcome approach but I found it a perfectly fine way of mixing the movie up. The film's conclusion contains plenty of action so it ends up being very balanced. In around the middle of Zombieland, there is a certain cameo whose identity I will not reveal, but he (a hint at least) ended up being my favorite part of the film. He is a universally-loved actor anyway, and seeing him again is a pleasure for practically anyone who will being seeing a movie called "Zombieland."

All in all, Zombieland takes lemons and makes damn fine lemonade. You may have tasted some of it before, whether it be in the consistency or tartness, but it brings back good memories and is the perfect cure for thirst on a hot day. In this case, the hot day is the current slough of movies that really make this film stand out. Even without these limitations, Zombieland is an excellent zombie film and one of the year's better comedies. Its careful borrowing of older ideas end up working because of the stellar execution in almost every regard. The acting, action, dialogue, comedy, cinematography....it all works. And I am more than satisfied with that.  
 
4/5

There really is not much to say about Jennifer's Body. Starring Megan Fox and written by Diablo Cody (Juno), the expectations are already set. Could this be the next high-school slasher film? Is the Academy Award-winning Cody going to strike gold again? Is Megan Fox still hot? The answer, with the exception of the last, is a resounding no.

As for the basics, Jennifer's Body is about the story of Jennifer (Megan Fox), the high school "it girl" who is drooled over by the male students and knows it. She teases them with their desires but *usually* doesn't give in. Her best friend, Needy (Amanda Seyfried) is a nerd but still is Jen's best friend, despite their physical and emotional differences. The problem comes when they both go to a bar one night and meet a Indie rock band called "Low Shoulder," with Nikolai (Adam Brody from the OC). A fiery event ensues and Jennifer is mysteriously whisked off with the band. She returns later to Needy's house in an emaciated form but, the day later, she is perfectly fine. It turns out Jennifer has turned into some demon/zombie that must feast on humans to keep her lustrous look intact. In this case, she chooses boys.

Jennifer lures countless different high school boys into her (literal) grasp by acting slutty but then, of course, disposing of them in gruesome ways. Unfortunately, these encounters are never scary or even sexy enough to get much of an impact, relying on horror movie cliches for "shock" value. For example, a boy walks into an abandoned house with absolutely no one on the street. Must be fine, right? He proceeds to climb through a window in the back of house that is under construction and gets freaked out by a crow that is inside the house. What happens next doesn't even need to explained; you know already. The violence is not even that graphic, as death scenes only involve shadows with blood splattering on walls or after views of murders that have humorously disfigured bodies with unreal excesses of blood. It's typical teenage slasher fare and not much more.

The script, with Diablo Cody of Juno fame at the helm, is nagging and vomit-inducing in itself. The worst part of Juno, the so-called "witty" dialogue, returns in full force, making expressions like "what the blog?" seem like child's play. When Jennifer is all bloody she says, "Got a tampon?" or, instead of using the word "jealous," Jennifer calls a boy "jello" and then repeats it five more times. Jen's final line is so ridiculously stupid I am not going to even repeat it here. I wonder how Diablo Cody won an Oscar in the first place and this movie should hopefully put her away for good.

Now, the acting. There really isn't much to say here, as well. Megan Fox is still sexy but incapable of much talent. It is definitely a step up from Transformers and, who knows, she may have a movie down the road where her sex appeal isn't the only thing that gets her by. But, in this film, Fox provides many laughs, usually unintentional, and is a very unconvincing demon child. Amanda Seyfried as Needy is merely okay, looking drastically different from Mamma Mia! from 2008. She still is an attractive actress even next to Fox here but her acting also relies on typical horror movie conventions. Her narration also can be grating, though this is more related to Miss Cody than her. Needy also has a boyfriend called Chip who is played by Johnny Simmons. He has a Zac Efron-style haircut so he can talk with a drawling, chill voice right? Well, the fact that he is never seen with anyone besides Needy (the names are starting to make sense...), pretty as she may be, begs to differ. A more nervous, uptight Chip would have been a better fit and probably provide a sense of comedic value but, as it stands, his character is actually decent. He provides a few funny one-liners and he is really the only other main character of the film, and the only male one at that, so he stands in rough territory. Adam Brody makes an impossibly stupid appearance as "Low Shoulder's" singer, not blinking an eye when a fire is blazing next to him or trying to reason that the devil is an indie rock band's best chance at success. Whenever he appears on screen, a guaranteed facepalm is bound to follow. The veteran actor here is actually the best. J.K. Simmons, the excellent character actor from Juno, Spiderman and Burn After Reading, is here as a one-handed teacher who provides most of the laughs or even emotion. Of course, his time on the screen can amount to maybe four-five minutes tops.

Truly, there is not much more to say about Jennifer's Body. The acting, script and story are all vapid or uninspired, but that is not even its biggest problem. The ultimate obstacle this film runs into is its severe identity crisis. It doesn't really know what it is or wants to be. There are not many laughs, there is not much horror, and there is not much sex. I actually had hopes that this film could have one or more of those three and executed them in an admirable way but, wow, was I wrong. Girls will probably not know the point and boys will be disappointed by the lack of the title star's "body." So, really, what is left?
 
2/5