If there’s one takeaway from Laika’s new film “Paranorman,” it’s that just because something is different or unusual does not mean it should be ignored; it should be given a chance. This especially applies to “Paranorman” itself, which is not your usual children’s animated film, but is still something that is definitely worth checking out. 

“Paranorman” is about the peculiar Norman (voiced by Kodi Smit-McPhee), who is forced into solitude because of his unusual ability to see and talk to ghosts. His family wishes he could just be normal and the other kids at school bully or shun him. Unknown to the town’s people, Norman’s unusual ability serves a greater purpose. Norman is descended from a line of people given this ability with the purpose of keeping a 300-year-old witch’s curse at bay. Unfortunately for Norman, he is never properly instructed on how to keep the curse away and finds himself, and a surprising entourage, on a journey against zombies and the witch, attempting to stop the curse once and for all.

“Paranorman” is like a mash-up of “Hocus Pocus” meets “Frankenstein.” It’s like “Hocus Pocus” because it is the family friendly paranormal comedy about a witch’s curse and an unusual group of kids that have to save the day. The humor in the two films are also very similar.

“Paranorman” is like “Frankenstein” because there is an overarching theme about misunderstood people and not being a bully. “Sometimes, when people get scared, they say and do terrible things,” Norman’s grandmother wisely says. In “Frankenstein,” Dr. Frankenstein’s monster was forced into solitude and attacked by the town’s people because he was different and the town’s people didn’t understand him. It didn’t end well for Frankenstein’s monster. In “Paranorman,” he’s also forced into solitude because people don’t understand him. And it isn’t just him. There are misunderstood zombies (the townspeople have a very “Frankenstein” moment toward the zombies), Norman’s one friend is shunned for being overweight and even the root of the curse breaks down into a misunderstanding. While not everyone can relate to a trait like speaking to ghosts, everyone should be able to relate to feeling misunderstood or bullied for being different in some sort of regard. The big anti-bully lesson really comes to fruition in the film’s climax.

What makes “Paranorman” so great are the tiny little details, especially those that pay homage to other films (this film really loves 80s and 90s horror). While a kid is sure to chuckle at some of the more slapstick comedy, there are plenty of little gems that are clearly meant for adults. For example, Norman’s phone goes off — the ringtone is the theme from “Halloween.” He looks out the window to see a person wearing a hockey mask. “Want to play some hockey?” Cue the chuckles. Perhaps the best laugh comes when true horror – the horror of a long wait for an item in a vending machine – is executed in the midst of a zombie attack. Pretty much everything with the zombies was hilarious and for the first time that I can remember, a film shows zombies reacting to seeing modern conveniences for the first time. Brilliant.

Another detail that worked well were how camera tricks were used to pay homage to the horror genre. The film starts in a square shape, which is supposed to be a TV screen. Sound booms breaking into frame act as homage to B grade horror movies. There are even solar flares used in scenes — this is stuff you never see in animations. Speaking of the animation, the animation of “Paranorman” is a bit to get used to in this day and age of glossy CGI-animations. Laikia made this using stop motion models, so the overall look is really different, but a lot more textured than what most animated fans are probably used to. The result is great for this film and everything looks really smooth for being the first stop motion 3D film.

“Paranorman” is a bit unusual, but if you’re willing to take a chance on something different, you’re going to be rewarded. This is a fun film with a good lesson for any age. I wouldn’t be surprised if this became an instant Halloween family classic.

Bethany Smith

I'm a geek; I love music, technology and grammar.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

When you’re making a horror/thriller film, it’s probably not a good sign when the audience is laughing more than they are screaming, but this was the case with the American remake of “Silent House.” 

“Silent House” is based off a Uruguay horror movie. It tells the story of Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen), who has returned to an old family property with her father and uncle to prepare it for selling. The place has been trashed by squatters and is filled with mold, broken  windows and to add to its creepiness in daylight, the power is out. Because of the remote location of the vacation home, cell phone reception is non-existent. In other words, it’s the perfect setting for a horror movie to unfold in. It doesn’t take long before Sarah starts to hear strange noises and scuffling sounds that make her suspect someone…or even something else is in the home. Her father goes to investigate the sounds, but Sarah later finds him badly injured in the floor. The cameras stay tight on her, so there’s a good hour of her running around, falling an insane amount, struggling with keys to get out of the home, silently crying and mouthing screaming, and just generally making some bad decisions. Then there’s also a lot of suspicious behavior by her father and uncle who lamely try to hide polaroid pictures from her. There’s a bit of a twist as to who or what is actually causing all the bad things in house and the whole film is all about leading up to this big reveal, but it’s these dumb behaviors where much of the laughter came in, sucking away any scare factor of this film.

Aside from the dumb behaviors, Sarah’s outfit did not help this film. Just like so many other dumb, cheesy horror movies  that keep the guys in normal clothes and the women scantily clad, Sarah is wearing a ridiculously low cut tank top. With all the running, bending over and how tightly the cameras stayed on her at a slightly down angled view, there was so much boob bouncing that it was almost impossible to focus on the creepier factors of the film. So nice work Elizabeth Olsen on convincing us that you’re a serious actor in “Martha Marcy,” but let’s hope you got these dumb, undermining films out of the way.

The film’s biggest selling point is that it is shown in real time — so you watch everything unfold as it happens. It’s also supposedly shot in single take with no cuts from start to finish, but I’m not sure I’m convinced of that considering some of the more impressive camera angles and how tight they’re able to stay the main character, Sarah. The real time is definitely an intriguing concept, but the rest of the film just couldn’t keep up and felt too cliched, underdeveloped and hollow by the time of the big reveal.

“Silent House” had its moments. There was a car scene that really well done. Here the horror came from looking up and realizing a door was ajar on the mirror sign. Looking at the notification again thirty seconds later showed it was now closed without the camera showing our character moving. That sort of creeping horror is what I wanted from the whole film, but when you’re only 88 minutes long, having only a few minutes that are good just isn’t enough.

If you really want to be scared this weekend, I think “The Woman in Black” is still playing, but you won’t get chills from “Silent House.”

Bethany Smith

I'm a geek; I love music, technology and grammar.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

The poster for Silent House premiered today on Bloody Disgusting. If the image of the poster is any indication of the terror to be experience on film, count us in.

If you haven’t already check out the trailer here.

Midcoast Station

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

As someone who enjoys a good scare or ghostly thrill, and who also happens to have been a huge Harry Potter fan, I have been incredibly anxious to see “The Woman in Black.” The trailers alone succeeded in creeping me out with the images of creepy looking children and their toys, and I have been increasingly curious to see how Daniel Radcliffe would perform in this role.

In this suspenseful and haunting drama, Radcliffe plays Arthur Kipps: a windowed lawyer whose career is hanging by a thread and is sent on a career making-or-breaking task to a remote town to sort out the affairs of an eccentric woman. When he arrives, the majority of the town is secretive and short and fearful, urging him to finish his work and leave without going to the house. They try to keep him from learning of their horrible history, but he demands on doing his work. He soon realized that his client’s house is haunted by the ghost of a woman who is determined to find someone she lost, and whenever she is seen, children in the village end up killing themselves.

The film is consistently dark and eerie, though unfortunately very slow-paced for what seems like the first half of the film. The story takes its time arriving at the main conflict and when it does, the conflict is not directly threatening the main character, so it is hard to get drawn in by that. The film’s more successful aspects are its simple, yet effective use of its scare tactics. The use of simple effects and contrasting dynamics are what makes the sudden appearance really make you jump. There is a scene where Kipps sees a hand print on the window and then upon placing his hand over it, in his reflection, a woman’s face appears, shrieking, and I felt the theater shake as everyone jumped back.

Radcliffe’s performance was strong, and even though it’s somewhat difficult to not imagine him as Harry Potter, this is a step in the right direction for him to move on from that defining role. I have to say that there is a quick scene in the house where Kipps retrieves a handful of documents out from under a room under the stairs and upon walking out several members of the audience, as well as myself began to chuckle to the unintentional and obscure Harry Potter allusion.

Overall this film is worth seeing, but I disagree with some of the trailers where it’s noted as one of the scariest films. I can compare it to the likes of “The Others” or “The Mothman Prophecies”- a really creepy drama with several moments of suspense. Be prepared to jump, but also prepare yourself for a semi-surprise at the end. Let’s just say that the lack of conflict in the story results in a strange twist of a resolve.

Andrew

Avid movie goer, music aficionado and Netflix junkie. I also strive to quote Jurassic Park on a daily basis and I sing like no one is listening when in the car.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

Elizabeth Olsen continues to make a name for herself after the much praised “Martha Marcy May Marlene.” This time she’s taking a turn at horror with the American remake of Uruguayan horror film “Silent House.” “Silent House” is a single take film set in real time — 88 minutes to be exact. It is set for a March 9 release.

Bethany Smith

I'm a geek; I love music, technology and grammar.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

The third installment of the Paranormal Activity franchise lives up to the standards set by the first two  films in style, effects, performance and over all quality. Paranormal Activity creator/writer Oren Peli with directing duo Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (who brought us the must-see Catfish) put together a film that is, simply put, very well done. The way they are able to seamlessly tell a story via ‘found footage’ and make it work for the audience is nothing short of incredible.

Paranormal Activity 3 takes us back to the beginning, like a good horror-trilogy should. We step back in time from the first two films (which I say loosely since Paranormal Activity 2 is both a prequel and a sequel?) and learn the origin of sisters connection to the demonic spirit. But how believable is it for each family that the separate films focus on  to document the entire experience on film?

In the first film, Micha gets a camera and documents the strange noises and happenings in his and Katie’s home. That works. In the second film Kristi’s family’s story is told from an initial home video/break in documentation combo escalated into a series of installed security cameras.

The third film is told by a combination of home videos shot by wedding videographer and boyfriend to Kristi and Katie’s mom Dennis,  played by Christopher Nicholas Smith (which by the way this character and actor reminds me so much of Micha from the first film it was sometimes distracting). What starts off as film guru shooting home videos soon takes a familiar turn once he realizes something is strage in their new house, specifically with the Kristi and her imaginary friend Toby. His suspicions and interest in this potential super natural experiences going on in his home is fed by his friend and co-worker and Dennis soon begins to set cameras cameras around the house (which by the way these cameras all record onto VHS tapes, good job staying consistent with the time period guys!).

One of the most creative suspense-enhancing effects used in this film was incredibly simple and very, very effective. Dennis ends up rigging a oscillating fan and attaching one of his cameras to it to capturing everything on the main level of the house. The camera pans from kitchen to living room/entry way and upon each sweeping movement you can fill the tension and anticipation in the air from everyone in the theater. You will expect something to happen, but when it does, you jump even more. This is an example of how these low budget films (both production and promotion) keep it simple while yielding amazing results.

Something that is often an overlooked nuance, or negative attribute of a film can be child actors. This is certainly not the case.  Both Chloe Csengery (Katie) and Jessica Tyler Brown (Kristi) do a phenomenal job in this film. I was incredibly impressed by the character of young Kristi and her interactions with her imaginary friend.

Now here is where I would like to go further and go into plot details, discuss all of the connections (and possible disconnections) to the first two films– but I am so against spoilers. However, after seeing the trailers and having seen both previous films I had several expectations and predetermined notions about what we would learn in this film and how it would connect to the references in the first two films.

I was wrong. (kind of)

One or more of the trailers (specifically the one posted below) contains several scenes that NEVER happen in the theater. This is known to happen from time to time, you go see a movie and something from the trailer you saw didn’t make the final cut. Usually you get over it….. I am having a hard time getting over it. Watch the trailer below and then read my comments below that which identifies the scenes that never appear in the film from this trailer.

Apparently, this is a product of shooting with a very loose script and not even completing the final scenes of the movie until a month before its scheduled release. I liked the film, don’t get me wrong. The omission of some of these scenes (like the house catching fire) completely disconnect from references in the previous films- and at the same time make me antsy for it to come out on DVD so I can see the film with its alternate scenes.

Here is a trailer which contains several clips/scenes that never appear on screen in theaters. This is the first trailer that plays on the official website as well.

You will not see these scenes in theaters.

• Kristi and Katie standing in the bathroom infront of the mirror playing ‘Bloody Mary’ — (This is what some of the trailers lead with, or what scene is  most remembered from the trailers, not in the film at all.)

• Girls knocking on the closet and the closet knocking back.
• Scene with a burning house. (It’s referenced in Paranormal Activity when Katie finds the burnt picture of her in the attic… it only seems appropriate for this to be in the film)
• Julie and younger daughter, Kristi, painting and running away from the entity after Kristi throws water on it.

• No scene where Julie gets pushed back onto the bed.
• No scene with little Kristi jumping off the ledge of the bedroom.
• No scene with the man in the suit (likely a Dr/Medium/Paranormal guy)

Andrew

Avid movie goer, music aficionado and Netflix junkie. I also strive to quote Jurassic Park on a daily basis and I sing like no one is listening when in the car.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

“Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” first flickered into the public’s conscience when the maniacal critters were released onto television screens in 1973. Now, “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” aims to haunt again, but will the big screen remake be able to outshine the original?

The new version of “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” sticks to the general plotline of the ’73 movie. A young family moves into an older home and during their remodeling efforts they discover a hidden room. In this room, the protagonist, Sally, inadvertently unleashes evil, fairy-like creatures that plot against the family to take one family member’s life to replenish their own ranks. The only thing that can keep these monsters at bay is light.

The main difference between the original and the remake is that Sally, is an adult (Kim Darby) in the original and a child (Bailee Madison) in the remake. More accurately, the remake splits Darby’s Sally into two characters: Bailee’s Sally and the new role of Sally’s father’s girlfriend, Kim (Katie Holmes).

At first, the idea of Sally as a child is an exciting prospect. Guillermo del Toro (writer/producer) did some exceptional work with a nightmarish story starring a child in “Pan’s Labryinth,” so the idea of him reworking another horror story with a child seems promising. However, the child angle is where this movie fell apart. While Madison shows plenty of signs that she is a more than capable actress, the role she was given was simply poorly written. The character of Sally is played as if it was an emo teenager and not the 8-year-old child she really is. This slight overaging of physically young character actually makes it harder for the audience to relate and care for Sally – she’s rude and dull for much of the first half of the movie — who would care about a person like that? Flashes of her true age flash through in the second half during some of the scarier scenes and these are the moments when her character becomes more human and interesting.

Horror films walk a fine line between cheesy and scary, but “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” seems to struggle with the line more than most. It doesn’t help the film that from the get-go, its main villains are little hunched back men with sticks. There are times in the film, when these guys are great at terrifying such as the moments when Alex is looking through the fireplace grate and the audience sees this pointed stick sliding toward his eye. Here the beasts are out of frame. They’re less terrifying when they can be seen slashing and plotting. There’s a moment in Sally’s bedroom (seen in the trailer) where she first sees one of the creatures under the sheet and this might have been scarier for the audience if the creatures hadn’t already been so visible throughout the movie. Take note horror film makers to not give away all your tricks too early in the movie. For “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark,” a movie that already has so much known about it because it is a remake, keeping some visual secrets would have been a huge help.

At the end of the original film, the final lines have the creatures asking, “When will they come? When will they come and set us free?” Well, Hollywood revisited the film and set the creatures free in a remake, but just as Sally learns, this was not the greatest of ideas.

“Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” is released nationwide in theaters by Miramax on Friday, August 26, 2011.

Bethany Smith

I'm a geek; I love music, technology and grammar.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me: