Avatar (2009)

In 2154, the RDA corporation is mining Pandora, an Earth-like moon of the planet Polyphemus, in the Alpha Centauri systemm Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), the administrator employs former marines as mercenaries to provide security. The humans aim to exploit Pandoras reserves of a valuable mineral called unobtanium. Pandora is inhabited by a paleolithic species of humanoids with feline characteristics. Physically stronger and several feet taller than humans, the blue-skinned indigenes live in harmony with nature and worship a mother goddess called Eywa.

The film serves multi-dynamic purposes: to entertain, to inspire, to revolutionise, to persuade, to shock and the list extends. The films dynamics are somewhat overwhelming which detracts attention away from the narrative structure, focusing all attention on the visuals which are inspiring at every level. The film is a mere spectacle, visually pleasing for the eye, more than a comprehensible narrative that we can all fully appreciate. You will find yourself indulging in and out of the story, placing the plot fragments together in your mind, serving as an analogy to Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), who places the fragments from Pandora into a logical form that he tries to make full sense of.

Wortthington is a paraplegic former marine who arrives on Pandora to replace his murdered twin brother. He provides a strong, effortless performance, alongside Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), the head of the Avatar Program, who considers him an inadequate replacement for his brother. The film raises issues around modern aesthetics, contemporary war solutions, imperialism, biological transformations. The list continues. Sigourney Weaver fully embraces the demand needed from her compromising role, and delivers another satisfying, if solemn, performance. The A-list cast did not feel overloaded, as the film offered plenty of space and development for stars to extend their talents, and embrace the demand Avatar needed from their representation of an elite humanity.

The film requires a more specific audience then will at first seem apparent. A family film you may assume, but the film is deeper and more rigorous that a family unit can appreciate, as the film targets certain individuals from the audience, and leaves the others behind. If you get lost in the narrative world, in the jungle, you will fight your own way out. Your peers will be too occupied struggling their own way out, figuring out the loops and holes of the film for themselves. Once lost, however, the aesthetics are left to enjoy. The film is demanding of you, but if you submit to its narrative world, you will not be totally alone, the whole world before your eyes will be there to save you.

Paranormal Activity (2009)

Paranormal Activity is a stylistic horror film, not one where the horror looms over you, but one where you loom over the horror, albeit unconsciously at times it seems. The film is without a script, conventional cast, location or even a director, although amateur want-to-be Oren Peli will no doubt take much credit for this. The film follows Katie who is a graduate student of English, and her boyfriend Micah who is a day trader. They've been together three years, and have now moved into a house in San Diego that doesn't seem much lived in at all. The house itself is empty and notoriously tidy, which always leaves this sense of this ‘other’ that is only existent to fill in this space, a space that the couple have left open for someone else to fill. Even if we can’t see them, we can surely feel them.

The film plays on the idea of the camera always ‘catching’ the evidence, even more accurately then the human eye itself. This can be compared to the Blair Witch Project to an extent, but Paranormal Activity plays on the idea that waiting and silence are much more prominent in the horror genre then straight-up shock. It seems we have become immune to pure shock in recent years, so now we create our own shock though the fragments of ‘nothingness’ that the film allows us to reflect upon. In-between the moments of shock in the film, we fill the gap in-between with predictions, anxiety and suspense. There is simply no room to be bored in Paranormal activity.

After the couple suspect that it is in fact ghosts acting upon them, they call in a "psychic expert" (Mark Fredrichs) but he's no help. What he does know, however, by walking in the door that what's haunting them isn't a ghost but some sort of demonic presence. Fredrich’s ability to ‘sense’ a more demonic presence in the house clearly plays on the psychology of the audience, as we begin to create our own visions of the unknown, and what its true intentions are for Katie and Micah. Micha’s manly obsession with the camera further the idea of the unknown, as every shot, every moment, adds some meaning into the ‘nothingness’ that fills the screen throughout most of the film. The ‘nothingness’ is what creates the fright in the film, the idea that something else must be filling in the moments of solidarity and unity, something that we cannot put our finger on.

Yes, the house is clearly haunted, but we don’t need to see this. The expressionistic acting from both parties does this for us. The horror in the film isn’t created though what we see with our own eye, but what the characters see though theirs, and this is what gives this film its credibility. The film also plays on the idea that the horrors documented are shown after the event itself, which adds yet another dimension to the fate of the characters, and whether true evil can really be defeated or not. The script is not existent, but the characters emotion and energy fill in the dialogue for us. Who needs speech anyway when your asleep at night, and a demonic monster is standing there watching you lifeless?

Halloween II (2009)

Halloween II, written and directed by Rob Zombie tries to explore a psychological relationship between Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) and her psychopathic brother Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) who once again has the intention of killing every human that crosses his path in the infamous town of Haddonfield. The film primarily focuses on Laurie, and her hallucinations that mirror Michael's, which involve a ghostly image of Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie) and a young Michael Myers. The psychology of the film stretches to the point where Laurie acts out Michael's murders, like a psychopathic envisioning that links her mental state to that of Michael’s himself.

While Laurie struggles with her dreams, Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) has been going on tour to promote his new book, only to be greeted with outrage from the public who blame him for Michael's actions and exploiting the deaths of Michael's victims. Loomis is once again victim to the citizens of Haddonfield, as well as Michael himself. Credit goes to Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) once again for living up to this incredible character created by John Carpenter who this time plays a rather comical and annoying Loomis, which sheds new light on his persona.

While the film deserves some credit for expanding the generic pattern of the slasher film by exploring a psychological depth, it is this very depth that discarded the true meaning of the Halloween series and the grit that the viewer would have expected in the first place. Halloween celebrates itself as a simplistic slasher film that knows what it is, and this was somehow lost in translation in this remake, partly through the script by Rob Zombie, and partly though his directing. The generic framework of the slasher film did not allow such a psychological depth as Zombie tried to explore, and this depth somehow got lost within itself. While Michael’s envisioning of Deborah’s ghost does further the sense of unease and unpredictability for the character of Michael himself, it did not enhance the plot, nor the nature of the slasher film itself.

If Zombie wanted to further engage in the psychology between Laurie and Michael, than why did he still insist on the film being “realistic and violent” as well? The psychological relationship between these two characters does add an interesting element to the series, but when combined with the gore, violence and realism, it conveys the film to be confusing and very un-generic for the genre that Zombie was trying to locate the film within. Audiences watching this remake will be disappointed for the reason that they are buying into a genre that is not being conformed to here, nor being expanded.

Zombie has merely experimented with the limits of the Halloween series, and has taken it too far on this occasion. The ending of the film, however, was satisfying, when Michael is shot twice by Sheriff Brackett and falls onto the spikes of the farming equipment. Laurie walks over and tells Michael she loves him, then she stabs him repeatedly in the chest and finally in the face. The shed door opens and Laurie walks out, wearing Michael's mask. This ending provides an interesting closure to the type of film that Zombie was trying to create, especially the idea of Laurie and Michael occupying the same mind. Overall Rob Zombie has made his intentions clear for this Halloween addition, but somehow his ideas were lost within the plot, making the film unconvincing and often confusing.

The Final Destination (2009)

The Final Destination, written by Eric Bress and directed by David R. Ellis is a simple, undemanding installment to a series that has unarguably run out of ideas it seems. Ellis returns to the series after directing the second installment that actually still had some life in it, even if the same ideas were implemented. The film follows Nick O’ Bannon (Bobby Campo) and his friends who survive a race track disaster after the premonitions that Nick receives whilst watching the race. The unhopeful group spend the remainder of the film discovering that death cannot be cheated because it will eventually catch up with its victims. This is the same concept that has linked the entire series thus far, making this film tasteless from the start.

Whilst the 3-D elements are implemented to good use, especially during the race-track scenes, the visual iconography of the film is hampered by a shallow and predictable plot that is worthless. Ellis’ choice of shots are also predictable, especially when George Lanter (Mykelti Williamson) is struck by the ambulance. The wide shot used before he was stuck, immediately gave way to his death which was unimaginative and tedious. Certain shots used by Ellis expressed nothing but predictability which does not add any authenticity points to the films credibility. Additionally, the acting from all parties was rather bland and unexciting, even if the film was broken up by fragments of comedy which did help to release some of the long-windedness from the films plot.

The Final Destination is a suitable addition to the series, but it seems as though this sequel was unnecessary and unconvincing. It did not wrap up any lose ends of the series, only expanded on the deaths and gore that the audience has seen in three films before the birth of this. It felt as though writer Eric Bress was struggling for imagination in creating the death scenes, which on the whole were fairly feeble. The exaggerated amount of gore from all the deaths did not add any excitement to them, it just made them more ridiculous and nonsensical than we have seen previously. Overall, the film is predictable and unimaginative, but it fits in well with the series premise, and for that reason shall not be dismissed.

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

Drag Me to Hell, written and directed by Sam Raimi is an authentic twist to a genre that is suffering with generic exhaustion as of late, it seems. The film follows loan officer Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) who denies gypsy Sylvia Ganush (Lorna Raver) an extension on her mortgage. This action stimulates a chain of scares, laughs and exciting moments that most certainly hybrids the film, creating a fresh and exciting outtake on situations that we feel we have all experienced at one time or another.

Upon leaving the bank, Christine is attacked in her car by Ganush. After a violent struggle, Ganush removes a button from Christine's jacket and uses it to place a curse on Christine. Christine's boyfriend, Clay Dalton (Justin Long), tries to comfort her, ensuring her the situation will amend itself. As a result of the curse, Christine is entrapped in a world of fright and terror, as a result of the spirits that haunt her at every moment.

Drag Me to Hell encodes a rather simple plot that at first seems predictable and worthless. A quarter of the way into the film, however, the film places its own unique personality on the horror genre, creating a comical outtake that enhances the experience that the audience could have wished for, even before entering the theatre. This experience is enhanced by fortune teller Rham Jas (Dileep Rao) who smothers the film in the humor that makes it so unique. Rao’s personality again separates this film from its desired ‘teen’ audience, allowing a wider audience to enjoy the humor from the film, even if the horror undertones are too unbearable.

Whilst the tone of the film was satisfying, Alison Lohman’s performance was not. The nature of the film requires a flexible approach, an aspiring actress that can atune to the many different undertones that the film contains. Whilst Lohman was expressive with the horror elements, her ability was stretched too far from the nature of the film, a disappointment for her. Supporting actor Justin Long, however, was satisfying, even though his role was less demanding than Lohman’s.

Drag Me to Hell knows what it wants to be, and that’s exactly what is provided. Audiences may be confused by the films ambition, but it is more obvious than can be imagined. It is at once a formulaic horror film, whilst at once a startling comedy, aimed at audiences of all types and ages. The mix of the two is what makes the film so enjoyable and understated. Whilst the film is cheesy indeed, director Sam Raimi has proven once again that his films can deliver, all the way to hell…

The Haunting in Connecticut (2009)

The Haunting in Connecticut is directed by Peter Cornwell, based on the ‘true story’ of events paranormal activities experienced by the Snedeker family in the 1980’s. The film follows cancer struck Matt Campbell and his family who move into a new home, which they learn was previously a funeral house where the bodies of several victims were laid to rest. The family start to experience supernatural events which they blame on the side-effects of Matt’s treatment, later to discover that their existence is within the presence of several sprits who inflict fright and violence on the family members.

The film, although relying on the firm foundations of the horror genre, does perpetuate the viewer into a sense of history, showing us the past events (of the house) that has caused the haunting to occur. This historical element of the film, however, doesn’t serve to enrich the viewers understanding of the present events, but rather makes the film come across as too ambitious and self indulgent for the foundations that the script would allow. The script merely conformed to rather formulaic conventions of the genre, which when combined with elements of history makes certain parts of the film come across as unnecessary, perplexed and convoluted.

The film is also rather pretentious. It seems that every action that Matt undertakes from making lunch, sleeping, looking through windows etc has a consequence. While this may offer a fright in many horror films, the fact the film is based on true events doesn’t allow for this constant scare, which should have been more subtle and attuned to the story the film was based on. This is a similar mistake films such as The Amityville Horror (2005) made. When a film is based on ‘true’ stories like this, the suspense should stay true to the story and not to the conventions of the horror genre; as these films tried to conform to. Films based on true stories like this have a huge advantage over others and unfortunately this film did not use it to its advantage.

Despite these flaws in the film, it does offer some scares, emotion, suspense and enjoyment that we would expect anyway. The film, therefore offers exactly what you will expect, but nothing more. The concept the film based on: a ‘normal’ family moving into a new haunted home, made it impossible for this film to be original from the outset purely because of the type of film it had to conform to. This is proved though the heavy use of referencing to The Shining, Number 23 and The Amityville Horror which confirms the real ambition The Haunting in Connecticut was trying to achieve. Overall, the film does offer a good experience, but when watching it, just remember all the films you have seen like this before, making this seem strangely familiar.

17 Again (2009)

17 Again, written by Jason Filardi and directed by Burr Steers stars Zac Efron in this innocent comedy film. The film starts in 1989 during a basketball match at Hayden High School. Mike O'Donnell (Zac Efron) is 17 years old, and is there to see if he is worthy of a scholarship. His girlfriend, Scarlett, told him she was pregnant just before the game started, and in the middle of the game Mike runs out of the gym to be with her, giving up the chance for a scholarship. The film then ellipses in time, showing Mike as a 37 year old man regretting it all. Mike has been turned down for a promotion at work, and is living with his best friend Ned Gold (Thomas Lennon) after Scarlett evicted him from the house. After a series of coincidental events, Mike transforms back into his 17-year-old self by the mysterious school janitor (Brian Doyle-Murray).

17 Again has better performances then expected, and actually, there is something always boiling beneath the rather shallow screenplay. When Ned has to pretend to be Mike's father in order for Mike to apply for high school, the film fragments into a thoughtful romance, which always returns to comedy with a rather serious tone. 17 Again isn’t a sloppy comedy film designed for the girls to stare at Efron for hours, but uses his persona to dig deeper into life challenges that most of us assume to be futile or even impossible. In this way, Efron uses his role in this film to achieve many of our own personal desires and wishes which can only raise his own prolific profile as a flexible actor.

On paper, the film most certainly has the potential to be a predictable comedy film, but director Burr Steers zooms in on key moments which make the film sentimental and magical. When Mike goes to Scarlett’s house and dances with her in the living room, the scene captures all the qualities of the film: comedy, magic, emotion and beauty, showing just in one scene how thoughtful and creative the film actually is. Whether the audience will view the film for Zac Efron, the story, or the Hollywood dream, you are guaranteed to find your personal desire in there somewhere. What could have been a slushy and conventional film turned out to be imaginative and potent so what are you waiting for? View it before you get too old yourself!

Marley and Me (2009)

Who is Marley and Me? Is it John Grogan? (Owen Wilson), Jenny Grogan? (Jennifer Aniston), or one of their three children? Marley and Me follows the life’s of the Grogan family and their pet Labrador Marley who transforms from an innocent puppy to a fully grown nightmare. Parallel narratives soon develop between John Grogan and his family life, and John Groan and his work life as an aspiring journalist in Southern Florida. The tensions between the two immediately step away from the traditional Hollywood formula, showing a rather sentimental outlook to a normal family life that is centred so heavily around love and commitment, immediately transpiring Marley and Me into a sentimental family film.

Despite the ellipsis in time that the film focuses on, the notion of time in this film doesn’t worsen things or discard moments from the past, but time serves as a reminder of how precious life really is and how a family unit is so integral to contemporary American life. John and Jenny try for their first child only to discover that it died in the womb. They try again and they welcome their first baby boy to the family, and again another baby boy, and finally they have a girl. No this isn’t just too perfect and convenient, but rather sentimental and aspiring, transporting the viewer into Hollywood, but a Hollywood that the viewer can finally achieve in themselves- one of family values and animals. Why don’t we all give it a go?

As time passes and the children get older, so does Marley. The past, this time of innocence and memory is fading as the tears roll down the face of the viewer. Marley is taken to the vets initially because of a problem with his stomach. He is released and sent home where he belongs, as part of American life and a family unit. His health later deteriorates and he is ‘put down’ at the vets. The film, although simple on the surface, raises issues of American life, Hollywood dreams, the past and future and even the family film as a contemporary genre. Is Marley in fact more than a dog, is a representative of the first child that Jenny never had? Does this suggest that animals are an integral element to a perfect family unit? Marley and Me is poetic, loving and an aspiring contemporary family film. In the theatre, you feel transported to a family that is far from perfect, but they are ‘real’. This is such a central ideology to the film that no one is perfect but its being ‘real’ that matters, something that Marley represented. Even though Marley did die, his spirit will live on, showing how sentimental and poetic American cinema can truly be.

I Love You, Man (2009)

Despite falling into a classical and formulaic plot, I Love You, Man is a socially engaging piece of cinema that somehow feels authentic in its own respect. Written and directed by John Hamburg, the film follows Peter Klaven who has just got engaged to Zooey Rice. Peter, however does not seem to have anyone special he’d like to share the good news with. After overhearing Zooey's friends tell her that they are concerned Peter does not have any friends, he realizes he needs to find some male friends in order to have a best man for his wedding. This concept forms the foundations to a rather simplistic but overwhelmingly derisive film.

The film is aimed at and advertised for a typical female audience, even though the film primarily focuses on the male figure, in particular masculinity and male sexuality. The film therefore segregates itself from the conventions of the romantic comedy by taking its conventions and almost criticising them entirely. The space that both Peter and his “friend” Sydney spend time together is not a space of “manliness” devoted to the male sex, but rather a space that the female audience can intrude in, giving them an insight into the opposite sex, creating comedy for them. This is not to say the male audience is excluded from the film. For them, the film becomes more than a tool for getting some comedy from, but a meaningful way of looking at the contemporary state of the male self and how this relates to the society in which we exist.

Paul Rudd as Peter Klaven demonstrates good performances, but sadly Rashida Jones (Zooey Rice) does not. Her performances at times verge on amateur which was exposed because of the nature of her role. She was not the ‘typical female figure’ who was about to fall into ‘normal marriage‘, and her character demanded a much more flexible approach which she unfortunately did not achieve. Rudd, on the other hand, stayed true to the nature of his role and the many diverse situations he was faced with, really lifting his profile as a prolific Hollywood actor. The directing most certainly added to the emotions expressed from the film, even if, at times, John Hamburg could have prevented so many shots being to static, prolonging one single situation. This effect at times make certain moments of the film seem too long winded and unfortunately unnecessary.

With a whole range of films of its kind being released as of late, I Love You, Man could have been a predictable, formulaic addition to a genre suffering from genetic exhaustion. The key quality from the film most certainly comes from its unexpected ability to draw in different audience types and providing different messages to them. Women will laugh, Men will laugh at the woman. Overall, I Love You, Man is a unique and highly unforeseen piece of cinema that is jam packed with laughs and moments of endless humour. Even though the plot is shallow, the depth of the film lies beneath, just like the feelings that poor Peter cannot admit to.

Knowing (2009)

Knowing, written and directed by Alex Proyas (Dark City) follows a young boy named Caleb who receives Lucinda's envelope from fifty years ago. Lucinda, a young school girl at the time dies of a supposed drug overdose and time ellipses to the present day. Caleb’s father John Koestler, a widower and professor of astrophysics, takes notice in the paper, and further examination makes him realize that part of these digits form dates and death tolls of every major disaster over the past fifty years, in chronological order, and suggests three disasters yet to come.

Knowing is a clever, deep and iconographically beautiful. The plot isn’t the prominent aspect of the film, but the way the plot is unveiled and structured. Scenes complement each other and lead to a satisfying and unpredictable conclusion. In this way, the film is a hybrid between an initial thriller that transforms into a rather astonishing sci-fi epic. The end of the film when we discover that the world will soon end in which Caleb is rescued by aliens is both sentimental and true to the genre transformation that the film explores.

Knowing doesn’t only have astonishing special effects, but they integrate so well with the films style and premise that the plot flows to us through the image which creates the experience. In the two initial accidents in the plane and train respectively, the effects are not overwhelming because they underpin the films style and message so well. Many will discredit Knowing, not providing the film with the attention it deserves. Unlike The Day After Tomorrow (2004) in which the effects drown the plot and overall story, Knowing uses its effects to build upon and expand the narrative which transpires it into a contemporary sci-fi epic.

Knowing has good performances from John Koestler (Nicholas Cage) and Diana Wayland (Rose Byrne) but they are not astonishing. This somehow doesn’t matter because the script is so compelling and imaginative that it forces the characters to flow with it, discarding the overall shallow performances that are represented.

The film starts of with an exploration to the films history, it then drives us into a sense of integrity during the middle of the film and then returns us into a future state, in contrast to the sense of history at the beginning. The film seems like it covers the earths history, not just the previous fifty years. Overall Knowing is a compelling and highly imaginative sci-fi epic. A must for fans of the genre and most certainly beyond.