2010: An Experiment

In 2009 I saw over 60 new films, but I only reviewed about 1/3 of them. I find that some movies are either too challenging to write about mere hours after watching, or they simply don't deserve a lengthy analysis (did Paul Blart need to be reviewed?). But as I wrote up my best of the year list, I realized that many, if not most of the movies I loved last year never got a proper review. I've decided to try and rectify that this year, so I present myself with a challange: to review every 2010 movie that I watch this year. Some reviews might be very short, others might come months after release because I caught a movie on DVD, but I will try my best to comment on each and every film you see in the sidebar to the right. So join me throughout the year, let's see if I can really pull it off.

Top 10: 2009

More than most years, 2009 seems to be a year that no one can agree upon. Usually there seems to be a very strong consensus among critics what the top 10 or so movies of a given year are, but not this year. I can look at a top 10 list by a critic I respect and have it not match at all with another critic's list. And what's funny is that neither really matches with mine, nor does mine match with any of my friends'. This was such a diverse year in film that nothing stood out ahead of the pack. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not, but either way, there's no denying there were a lot of interesting movies this year.

The running theme I noticed was how many messy, ambitious films came out this year. Filmmakers were really trying to be ambitious with their projects, and many failed to reach their lofty goals. And yet, those films became something more special for having tried to be bigger, different. Films like Funny People, Watchmen, Antichrist, The Informant, and Where the Wild Things Are were incredibly ambitious, and all failed on some level. And yet, those shortcomings made the films all the more fascinating. I will always take a failed masterpiece over something that plays by all the rules. While none of those films made my top 10, they deserve special mention for at least trying something.

So, without further ado, here are the greatest films of 2009.

10. Coraline

2009 may go down as one of the great years for animation. So many delightful animated films were released, and on top was Coraline. From Henry Selick, he who brought us Nightmare Before Christmas, this is a wonderfully weird and dark family film. In the character of Coraline, Selick found an offbeat and engaging heroine, one you could both route for and shake your head at simultaneously. The use of 3-D in this film also made me realize just what sorts of things were capable with the technology. Never used to beat you over the head, it brought you into the dual worlds Coraline exists in. Stop motion animation is a very exhausting and time consuming process, but I sincerely hope that Selick continues to champion it in the near future.

9. Adventureland

No film gets at the post college-grad life quite as perfectly as this one does: you know you've accomplished something great by getting a degree, but now what? Perhaps it is because I too had a pointless summer job post college graduation, but this film rang incredibly true to me. Sold as a raunchy Apatow comedy upon release, it is anything but. Filled with heartfelt moments, subtle humor, and engaging, conflicted characters, it is incredibly astute in its examination of a very specific moment in life. I admit, I can be a sucker for films that tap into a nostalgia for something in my past, and this film cut right to my heart. There are moments in life where you pause for a while and do something that seems meaningless at the time, but in retrospect it ends up being one of those great moments in your life. Adventureland gets the allure of those fleeting moments.

8. The Brothers Bloom

Following up his breakout film Brick, Rian Johnson makes a caper film that is every bit as fun. Mark Ruffalo and Rachel Weisz are in top form, and the script is incredibly intelligent. It hits at a theme that I think resonates with everyone, yet few, if any films really tackle: life, if we're being honest, has no narrative. No matter how many biopics we see that try to turn a life story into a cohesive narrative, we all know it isn't true. And yet, we all try to make our own internal narratives anyway. We find important meanings to our lives, and we try to construct our own story based on them. The Bloom Brothers understand this, and they feed off of it to create elaborate cons in which the mark can play into their own imagined life narratives. It is such a life affirming movie.

7. Paranormal Activity

I am something of a horror film buff. Every October I put a dozen horror films at the top of my Netflix queue and just enjoy the most macabre and silly films I can find. I have seen essentially all the "Scariest Moves Ever," from The Exorcist to Nosferatu to Halloween. None scared me as much as Paranormal Activity. None even came close. The experience of seeing this in a theater with a large audience is something I will take with me for the rest of my days. People were shaking, people were sobbing. This film was overwhelming. Of course, the backlash will ensue, but those of us who saw it in a darkened theater when it was still this small thing know that it is terrifying. I know it's a film I will break out every few years for Halloween, hopefully scaring some unsuspecting friend who hasn't seen it yet.

6. The Cove

I know a lot of people can be quite resistant to documentaries. Docs can be so dry and dull, so full of themselves. And how could something that examines dolphin slaughtering in Japan not be that? Well, watch The Cove and find out. Framed like it is a heist film, a group of filmmakers and activists decide to find out what exactly goes on in a hidden cove in Japan. They all know that dolphins are being captured in that cove, but they have no proof of what becomes of those animals. The film is breathless in the way it shows how these people sneak into this forbidden cove and set up hidden cameras to document the slaughter going on. It is an eye opening film, but one that is equally entertaining. It's one of the few documentaries I would recommend to those who don't like the genre.

5. Moon

What a great year for sci-fi 2009 was. While we had big spectacle films like Star Trek and Avatar, Moon went a different route. More in the vein of Kubrick's 2001, Moon is small, quiet, thought provoking sci-fi. There are no villains, no action set pieces, just a lot of stuff to chew on. Somehow it was released without its central premise being given away, so I will keep to that in the hopes that you won't spoil it for yourself and just experience it. Sam Rockwell gives the best performance of his career, as a man working alone in a station on the moon. Things that seem like plot holes (why would anyone allow one man to work alone on the moon?) turn out to be major plot points, asking you to consider certain aspects of human nature. If you like your sci-fi small on scale but big on ideas, this film will delight you.

4. (500) Days of Summer

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is quickly becoming my favorite actor. 2009 was his break out year, thanks in large part to this film. What could have been a slight romantic comedy instead turned out to be a great meditation on what it means to be in a relationship with someone, and what that does to the two people. This film was filled with a number of year best moments, from the post-coital dance number to the devastating reality vs expectations scene. Like 2007's Once, this film is for anyone who knows what it's like to be in a relationship, and all the ups and downs that come along with that.

3. District 9

On the opposite spectrum from Moon, District 9 is the kind of grand sci-fi action film that, when done correctly, can really tap into the zeitgeist. Not content to just be empty spectacle, this film tackles racism in a new and interesting way. Framed as a documentary about the relocation of alien refugees in South Africa, the film features a breakout performance from Sharlto Copley. This is a rousing picture that never skimps on all the important things: characters, ideas, story. I am generally against sequels, but this is the rare film that actually demands to be continued. In a year filled with exciting new directors, director Neill Blomkamp is the one to really watch.

2. Up in the Air

As you have probably heard in a number of reviews, this is the film of the moment. There are certain films that you can watch if you want to know what the world was like at a specific moment in time, and Up in the Air is that to 2009. The idea of a man who fires people for living, himself uncertain of how long he has left in his own job, is a great way to look at these uncertain times. Filled to the brim with great performances, it is George Clooney who anchors it all. I like to watch actors stretch and try new things, but sometimes playing a variation of your persona is the most effective way to go. Director Jason Reitman rightly realizes that by utilizing Clooney, he is able to align us with this character much more easily than if it had been played by someone who had to stretch to play the part. Funny, emotional, intelligent, and just a great time at the movies, Up in the Air never misses a step from beginning to end.

1. Inglourious Basterds

What more can be said about Quentin Tarantino at this point? It's safe to assume that when he is gone, he will be looked back at with reverence and fascination in the same way we do with Kubrick, Hawks, Truffaut, and other iconoclasts of cinema. His best film since Pulp Fiction, this is a layered, unusual, and exciting film. For those simply looking for a good time, you have a great story told with exciting flourishes and dynamic acting. But for those willing to dig a bit deeper, you have a meditation on the power of language and propaganda. Every chapter in the film plays a part in Tarantino's examination of how we use words to our advantage. Be it that brilliant opening scene (May we switch to English?), or the first meeting between Hans Landa and Aldo (Bonjourno!), how people use language is the dominating factor throughout the movie. And indeed, Landa (played to perfection by Christoph Waltz) may be the character of the year. I can think of no character that was more engaging, more interesting, and more unpredictable, than he. Inglourious Basterds is just that perfect fusion of filmmaker, concept, actors, and ideas that comes around all too rarely.

Avatar

In my lifetime, I don't think a film has gotten nearly as much hype as Avatar has. Maybe The Phantom Menace can equal it, but that was more for it being a return to a beloved franchise than for the film itself. With Avatar, James Cameron has repeatedly stated that this was a game changer. This film would singlehandedly thrust film into an exciting new direction, giving filmmakers new tools with which to play. For this film to be anything less then a 4-star masterpiece would be a failure, by Cameron's own definition. Being a devout Cameron fan, I can't help but admit that I was expecting the most from Avatar. Could he really live up to this hype he had built? Well, obviously, no, he couldn't. Not even close, actually. It seems unfair to hold high expectations against a film, but when a film is built and sold very specifically on those expectations, they must be taken into account. Avatar is not a failure, but it sure isn't a game changer, either.

It takes a lot of balls to say that your imagination is so great that film technology will need to catch up before you will return to film making, but that is essentially what James Cameron did in the wake of Titanic 12 years ago. Not content to just wait, though, Cameron has been actively pursuing advances in technology in order to bring his vision for Avatar to the screen. I can tell you that, yes, the visuals are quite stunning. The time and money spent to make motion capture technology make things look lifelike has paid off. It is simply amazing to look at this blue creature on the screen and instantly say "Whoa, that's Sigourney Weaver!" Robert Zemeckis has dedicated the better part of this decade to making motion capture a legitimate form of storytelling, and with a shrug he has said that these pictures aren't going to be perfect, but he has to keep making them until they do reach the level of perfection in his imagination. James Cameron wisely avoided this folly and just perfected the technology first, then made his movie. Perhaps the smartest aspect of this decision was that he wasn't trying to create human characters, like Zemeckis, but instead a whole new race of creatures that didn't have to look human.

Now, before I get ahead of myself, I do not think that the technology here is as groundbreaking as it should have been. Aside from facial features, the rest of the CGI is pretty cartoony. No one would mistake a crowd of animated Na'vi for real living creatures. I think that motion capture is also very dependant on the actors underneath the special effects. I find Gollum in Lord of the Rings more believable than anything in this film simply because the acting on display is more honest and true than that of the actors here. Sam Worthington was supposed to be the new big thing in 2009, but between Terminator Salvation and this, it is clear he is nothing special. His line delivery is depressingly monotone and one note, and I never for a second cared about his character. Zoe Saldana, as a Princess of the Na'vi, is actually quite good, but the problem is she just helps to shine a light on how bad her screen partner is by comparison. The rest of the cast doesn't exactly stand out (how does a Sigourney Weaver performance in a James Cameron film fail to stand out?!), but it is hard to discredit actors when the material they are working with is awful.

Now, you can change the game all you want, but if you don't have a great story to back it up with, it's all for nothing. James Cameron has never been accused of being a great dialog writer, but he knew how to string together a gripping, powerful story. That is never the case here, with what is easily his dullest story. In the future, we have depleted the resources on our planet, so we have made our way to Pandora. Pandora is a lush planet, but the native Na'vi do not appreciate our presence. Through a breakthrough in technology, we are able to create Na'vi avatars for people to infiltrate their society and either befriend them, or force them out. From this basic premise, the film hits all the expected notes: outsider infiltrates the Na'vi, begins to fall in love with one of them, decides to unite the Na'vi and save them from the invading forces. Now, I do like how much detail Cameron put into shaping this world, but if he had just spent as much effort on the characters and the story, this could have really been something. Instead, it is dreadfully dull, clearly telegraphed experience for most of the run time.

The other hyped aspect of this film is how it is supposed to legitimize the use of 3-D in films. Perhaps what surprised me most about this film was how unnecessary the 3-D actually was. A film like Coraline actually uses 3-D in artistic and emotional ways, trying to achieve something new. This film simply uses it to make things feel bigger and more expansive. Not all together an ignoble thing, but not something that really made me enjoy the film any more. While this film should be seen on the big screen if it is ever to be seen, seeing it in 3-D is not exactly a deal breaker. When the film finally gets to some action set pieces about 2 hours into the film, the 3-D makes it a bit more immersing, but I would also argue that by that point you will be a bit dulled to its existence.

I grew up on James Cameron films, and I love everything he has made. When he took a 12 year break, it was sad, but I was hopeful he would come back with something special. Instead, he seems to have lost a bit of his storytelling prowess. Considering what he stated he wanted to achieve with Avatar, the end results are dispiritingly lifeless. Yes, motion capture technology has upped its game in a big way, but without the great actors underneath it all, its just empty spectacle. I expect more from Cameron than that.

Catching Up: Mini-Reviews (Oscar Edition)

We're in the heat of awards season now, so I am catching as many films as I can before year's end. This past week I caught three films, all of which seem tailor made for the Oscars. Will any of them score with the Academy? I suspect at least one of them will. The other two? Well, read on...


Invictus

Clint Eastwood's latest is also among his worst, if not his outright greatest failure of the decade. I am generally a fan of Eastwood, which makes Invictus all the more painful. He has seemingly assembled all the right pieces together: a great historical figure in Nelson Mandela, a stellar cast (Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon), and a script that both works on its own and as an allegory for the current political climate here in America. And yet, none of it works. Eastwood is intent on oversimplifying the whole affair, to the point where Mandela comes across as naive and hopelessly lost in his new found position of power because all he cares about is rugby. We do not see him in any context except that which pertains to his dream of uniting the nation through the Rugby World Cup. Did Mandela actually do anything else, political or otherwise, in this period? Invictus would lead you to believe no.

The acting is unexceptional, Damon especially. Freeman is never bad, but he is not given a whole lot to work with. It's a shame, too, because Freeman seems like he makes a good Mandela, from what I can tell. But perhaps the most cringeworthy thing in this film, and the moment that made this go from simply bad to among year's worst, is the way in which it suddenly invokes 9/11 imagery for no reason. Now, in the right context this sort of thing is completely justified, but not here. As the final match of the World Cup begins, we get an out of nowhere scene in which a pilot informs his crew that he accepts full responsibility for what they are about to do. We watch as he pilots his plane towards the stadium. The plane just barely misses the stadium, and we see that the bottom of the plane has a message of congratulations written on it. This scene adds nothing to the film, aside from unnecessary tension and a sense of discomfort. What was Eastwood trying to say with this moment? Nothing, I suspect, and the film itself amounts to much the same thing: nothing.





The Lovely Bones

After four years out of the limelight, Peter Jackson is back with The Lovely Bones. The last time he adapted a beloved book we got Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately, lightning does not strike twice, although I suspect at least part of that is due to the source material. Never outright bad, The Lovely Bones does very little right, either. The story of a young girl who is murdered and watches from heaven (or is it?) as her family and her murderer go on with their lives. At the film's center, Saoirse Ronan is quite good. She is shaping up to be quite a skilled young woman, and I look forward to her future projects. Beyond her, though, little is worth mentioning, as the other performances are largely forgettable. As the murderer, Stanley Tucci feels like an amalgamation of killers we've seen before, never hitting any new notes. As the grieving father, Mark Wahlberg plays every scene in wide eyed wonderment. The rest of the cast don't even have enough screen time or character development to warrant much thought. Which is a shame, as they seem like they could have had real weight given the right director.

And indeed, Jackson seems ill-suited for this kind of story. He once might have been able to handle the smaller scale of the story, but his output this decade has steered his sensibilities towards spectacle and bloat. His vision of heaven (or is it?) rings false, largely due to the tacky and obvious cgi used. These images also overwhelm the human story at this film's center. By film's end, you feel slightly exhausted instead of emotionally satisfied. This story probably would have worked far better in the hands of an up and coming director who could make the picture smaller and more intimate, streamlining the novel's narrative in a more meaningful way. As it is, it simply doesn't work.





Up in the Air

This film is the real deal. After stumbling in a big way with Juno, Jason Reitman is at the top of his game here, as is George Clooney, who hasn't been this good in years. Up in the Air follows Ryan Bingham as he travels the country firing people for companies who can't seem to do it themselves. When he learns that he may himself soon be out of a job, he starts to question what it is that he wants out of his life. Clooney really makes you start to believe that his lifestyle would be fun, which is why he is the perfect man to play this role. When his walls start to come down, and he starts to second guess himself, we are right there with him. A lesser actor would have had us against him from the beginning. The rest of the ensemble are equally strong, with Vera Farmiga in particular standing out with her feisty and unexpectedly nuanced performance. Reitman has proven to have a knack for collecting the perfect actors for his movies and utilizing them correctly.

A great film is more than the sum of its parts, and such is the case here. I could go on and on about the great acting across the board, the smart and timely script, the way certain themes weave in and out of the story in subtle ways, and so on 9and I probably will in my best of the year countdown). But really, it is the film as a whole that is so wondrous. Everything in the film is there to serve everything else in the film. And as I think about this film, and as I write about it, I can't help but think how close to a masterpiece this film is. It absolutely needs to be seen.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

Few films are as punishing as Precious. I have a pretty high tolerance for messed up movies: I sat through Audition, Salo, and Batman & Robin. But Precious hit me on a level that was almost too much for me. This film heaps so much on its protagonist - and by proxy, its audience - that I had to stop looking at the screen after a while. It wasn't that it was visually repulsive, just that looking at these characters became almost too painful. It didn't help that the acting was so strong that the people I was watching felt like real human beings. Now, a punishing experience can be a rewarding one: look no further than Requiem for a Dream for a perfect example of this. But when that punishment is in disproportion to anything else in the film, it can topple an otherwise noble venture. Yes, the story is powerful and the acting is great, but none of that matters when you feel like the director's primary goal is to make you feel repulsed.

Before I go any further: I liked this movie. Its strong points were enough to make this a satisfying experience. But it is impossible to overlook this film's huge flaws, and I may spend more time harping on them than I spend praising what works. Just remember that ultimately, I recommend this film. Ok then. Director Lee Daniels may have experience with the issues addressed in Precious, it may mean a lot to him personally, but he is unable to filter those emotions in a meaningful way on screen. What is a redemptive, powerful story at heart is undermined by his exploitative sensibilities. The way the film is shot and edited seems to relish in the most salacious imagery. Why must we see a rape scene intermixed with frying food and crumbling ceilings? Granted, there is no easy way to film such a scene, but Daniels seems to not trust that it is unsettling on its own, and must add extra touches to upset us. Indeed, that is problematic throughout. Daniels is never content to let his story tell itself, he feels compelled to insert heightened imagery and moments, as if we are so desensitized that we wouldn't respond otherwise.

Now, I have never experienced this world before, nor do I know anyone who has, so I have no good frame of reference for the material in this film. I am not naive enough to think that these sorts of things don't happen to people. I know it's a sad fact of life that some people live short, thoroughly unpleasant lives punctuated with abusive and damaging moments. But the amount of things piled onto Precious here are simply unbelievable, and unnecessary. When Precious brings home her newborn son, it's not enough that her mother is blowing smoke in the baby's face and cursing, she has to drop the child on purpose. It's not enough that Precious is raped by her father, she has to contract HIV from him as well. And on and on, etc. Precious is already a very sympathetic and fascinating character, but the screenplay does not trust this and keeps piling it on in the hopes of making us feel more for the poor young woman. Thankfully, it is the performances that overcome the screenplay and direction and almost make this a genuinely great film.

As Precious, Gabby Sibide is a revelation. She plays the damaged youth in a quietly affecting way. It helps that she's been blessed with such an expressive face, allowing her to transmit so much to the audience without saying a word. And in case you might think this unknown actress is simply playing an exaggerated version of herself, there are plenty of fantasy scenes where the mumbly, slow speaking girl is transformed into a glamorous, charming, verbose woman. From what I've seen in interviews, this is much more akin to the real Sidibe, making her transformation into Precious all the more amazing. But perhaps the real surprise is Mo'Nique. When I wrote about Funny People this summer, I said one of the great joys in film is seeing an amazing performance come from someone you didn't think had it in them. Well that is Mo'Nique to a T. She plays Precious' mom as an unholy monster of a woman, never shying away from the truly ugly nature of the woman. And yet, when it comes time to peel back a few layers, Mo'Nique is able to let us into this woman in unexpected ways while never letting us forget what she has done. It is a towering, fearless performance the likes of which we rarely see.

On the shoulders of these two actresses, Precious becomes a movie worth seeing. These are two of the best performances of the year, make no mistake, and they rise above their untrusting director. I think that this is a story well worth telling, but it has been done better elsewhere. For a similar examination of this kind of world, check out season 4 of The Wire. It covers much of the same territory, but with a much lighter and more refined style. It trusts the audience in ways Daniels never quite does. Still, Precious is a great character worthy of her own movie, and since we'll never get a movie worthy of her, this one will have to do.

Where the Wild Things Are

No matter what you think of Where the Wild Things Are, you have to give it credit for not being what you would normally expect from an adaptation of a children's book. I expect this film will divide a lot of people, and its theoretical target audience - kids - will almost certainly not like it. But the fact that it didn't turn into The Cat in the Hat or Shrek the Third is a minor miracle. But then, you don't hire Spike Jonze and expect typical. What Jonze instead delivered is a film that is melancholy, adventurous, lyrical, boring, artistic, plot-less, grim, scary, funny, alienating, and childish (among other things). It's a big ball of emotions, and that's kind of an exciting achievement. I can't say that I was always entertained, but on an intellectual level I was always fascinated.

To take the original Wild Things book and turn it into a feature length film is a daunting task in and of itself. The book is beautiful to look at, but it has no real plot. A boy named Max is punished, so he runs off to the land of the Wild Things, where he is proclaimed king and has a wild rumpus. He then goes home and eats dinner. Simple, fun, kids book. The film pads this concept out, and it does so by ramping up the emotional aspects of the film. We are completely in Max's (Max Records) head throughout the film, and at times it is wondrous what Jonze is able to achieve through this. He taps into memories of childhood that I had forgotten about completely, and seeing them on the screen brought on a flood of memories. I suddenly remembered doing those things, feeling that way. But as the film goes on, it loses some of those nostalgics in favor of exploring more general emotions. It is here where the film stumbles, and it is unfortunate that this is also the same moment when the Wild Things appear.

Each Wild Thing represents an emotion. Sure, they all apply to kids, but they really apply to everyone. Anger, loneliness, sadness, pride, bossiness: each has a Wild Thing. Unfortunately, the film doesn't quite know what to do with these emotional creatures. Max ultimately presides over them, and the symbolism of that is clear, though not always entertaining. Max struggling with his emotions is the right idea for this adaptation, but it is something that is dwelled upon for too long. That illuminates the real problem at hand: the film is just too long. As a short, it would be a masterpiece. At 90+ minutes, it can't sustain its central conceit. I loved being in the world for a time, but like Max, I longed to go home.

Where this film undoubtedly succeeds is in the visuals. The way Jonze created the Wild Things is stunning. Part Jim Henson puppets (think Sweetums), part CGI, they are seamless and easily the most beautiful special effects of the year thus far. On top of that, the cinematography and art direction bring this world to life in a mesmerizing way. The shots linger on this fantastical world much like your eyes might have on the pages of the book. I mentioned before that the film really gets into the head space of Max, and a big part of that is through the way they shot the world he exists in. Beautiful stuff.

Speaking of Max, the young boy playing him is wonderful. He is never cloying, never mugging. He simply feels like a real little boy. Having to act against these imaginary things, which probably looked pretty silly during filming, he is utterly believable. The way he naturally conveys the emotions of childhood are one of the strong points of the film. Max may just be a little boy, but you care about him and understand him through the performance. The other actors are just as great, though it is Max's movie. Catherine Keener as his mom is great and understated, and she leaves an impact on the rest of the film after she is gone. The Wild Things are all voiced wonderfully, especially by James Gandolfini as the central Wild Thing, Carol. Each actor is able to get to that central emotion their Wild Thing is supposed to represent, and they stick to it well. It's not a film about big lessons or evolving characters, so the Wild Things don't become different creatures thanks to Max, but you still feel like they've come to embrace who they are a little bit by the end.

Spike Jonze is a very interesting choice to direct this film. Clearly a man with a distinct vision, Warner Bros must have known they wouldn't get the typical family film from him here. And indeed, it really doesn't seem to work as a family film. I could get into it because I understood what Jonze wanted to convey, but it wasn't a film to be enjoyed as much as appreciated. It's a flawed film, but one that comes from a singular vision worth experiencing. Perhaps the best way to sum it up came from a mother and son sitting behind me at the screening. After it was over, the boy said to the mom "Why did you want to see this?" The mom replied, "Because it was beautiful."

Paranormal Activity

When a horror film is done right, when it hits exactly all the right notes, it is the best movie going experience. Fear is such a powerful emotion, it is fascinating to experience it. Films like The Exorcist, The Haunting, or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre can bring out a stronger emotional reaction from an audience than just about any other movie, period. Unfortunately, films like those come around maybe 3 or 4 times a decade, if we're lucky. The vast majority of horror films are simply made up of copious gore and jump moments. This decade especially has been devoid of any real classic horror films, with studios opting instead to remake every horror film imaginable. So when a little film called Paranormal Activity popped in out of nowhere, I took notice. It seemed to rely more on atmosphere than violence, something that goes a long way in a good horror film. Still, a film that derives scares from loud noises and lights flickering has to be exceptionally well done to avoid looking very silly. It's not an easy thing to pull off, especially on such a low budget. Thankfully, Paranormal Activity doesn't look silly at all. Indeed, it is downright terrifying.

The film, as you have probably heard, owes a lot to The Blair Witch Project. Like that film, it's a low budget indie film that some friends decided to make over a week. It's shot as if it is found footage from a couple who decided to look for paranormal activity in their house. You have to get into the right mindset for this kind of film, or else it won't work on you. However, if you can embrace it, it will frighten you like few other films have. It follows the couple as they realize that their house is haunted not by a ghost, but by a demon. One might wonder: why not leave the house then? That is answered in such a simple, logical, and terrifying way that it makes you feel almost as helpless as the characters in the film. There is no escape for the characters, and thus, none for the audience as well.

The film is basically a series of tension building scenes that just become more and more unbearable as the film progresses. At first we see doors open and close or hear loud stomping coming from the hallway, but these things become more and more intrusive and dangerous. There are so many moments that stand out as utterly scary, that it becomes useless to list them. One that I will mention is when the demon decides to grab somebody and take them with him down the hall. We've assumed up until this point that the demon will only interact with the object in the house, not the people. So when it happens, this moment comes seemingly out of nowhere and hits you very hard. And it's only the tip of the iceberg. While the demon in question is never seen, its presence it palpable. The filmmakers used very trick they could think of to make this thing feel so menacing, and it pays off.

I can honestly say I've never been this scared by a movie before. It took me by complete surprise. The way it draws you into the experience, it becomes overpowering at times. The screams from audience members were constant throughout the film, and people were physically shaking after it was over. Given how many horrible horror films we've had the last decade, I think a lot of people have forgotten just what it's like to be genuinely scared by a movie. I'm not talking about things jumping out at you and making you jump in your seat. This film creates honest dread in you as you watch it, and it is hard to shake once it's over. It's not the most eloquently put together movie, but as a horror film, it stands out to me as one of the most effective - if not the most effective - that I have ever seen. If you care at all about horror films, you owe it to yourself to see this movie. Because, honestly, who knows when we'll ever get something quite this scary again.