At the movie’s otherwise stirring conclusion, he proposes that capitalism be replaced with “democracy”.  Although this sounds like a nice idea, democracy is a political system, one that is best accompanied by capitalism.  Moore should have more clearly made the point that capitalism is not inherently structured to destroy equality, but that if the wrong people are allowed to shape it then that occurrence will be inevitable.
Despite the above issue, and in spite of some over the top grandstanding by Mr. Moore, Capitalism is a must-see movie for anyone interested in exploring the root causes of our current economic crisis.  It shows that America has not been undone by irresponsible homeowners, or by lazy workers, or even by illegal immigrants.  Rather, the entire American public has been betrayed by a select group of powerful men whose unquenchable thirst for wealth is threatening to tear apart the fabric of this great nation.  Although it is clearly aimed at progressive audiences, I urge people of all political biases to see this movie, and to strive to reclaim our country from those who have discreetly stolen it from us.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

Like the film before it, Paranormal Activity begins and ends with the same cinematic device that Blair Witch uses; realism. Paramount Pictures makes the audience believe that the film is footage found from a camera chronicling the ignominious fates of aspiring film-makers who ventured too deep into the supernatural. Because this trope has been used in Blair Witch and other films such as Cannibal Holocaust, Cloverfield, and REC, it seems rather trite. However, by the finale Paranormal seems even more chilling than the aforementioned films. Despite the similarities, Peli’s film is far superior to the Blair Witch Project in terms of quality.

Honey, is that you standing by the door?

The unlucky couple in the film, Katie and Micah, is portrayed by Katie Featherston and Micah Stout, both debuting as film actors. Their roles were particularly demanding because of the lack of a script; they were only given an outline and were expected to improvise their dialogue. As a result, the dialogue flows well and seems natural. The characters are consequently much easier to relate to and easier to root for. This makes the film more terrifying as the audience does not want to see the characters come to any harm, a direct contrast to Blair Witch, when I was personally rooting for the Witch to kill those arrogant students. Although Micah can be quite dense and tactless and Katie somewhat strung out, these faults make them more endearing, and let’s face it, who wouldn’t be strung out while being stalked by a literal demon?

The demon of the film is never fully explained. Because of its demonic status, there is no need to delve into its past nor do the characters really seek to communicate with it. In fact, Katie specifically does not wish to contact it, in contrast to other horror films where the protagonists usually try to seek some way to approach their tormentors.

Because the demon remains unexplained throughout, the audience’s imagination runs amok, and this, in the same vein as Jaws, makes the villain more terrifying. It is explained that an evil spirit has been haunting Katie since she was only eight years old, and that while it sometimes leaves her alone for years, it always returns again. The demon has also caused physical harm as it is heavily implied that it was responsible for the loss of Katie’s child hood home in a fire soon after the first haunting began.

Now, after years of dormancy, it has come back into Katie’s life, prompting Micah to purchase a camera to record any activity.

The demon starts off small at first, spending its time knocking on walls, flicking lights and messing with Katie’s keys. The couple consults a psychic who tells them that the beast feeds on negative energy to become stronger, and the best way to counter the demon is to not let it get to them. But, as Micah sets up the camera to capture the haunting, he antagonizes the creature, causing it to resort to more terrifying methods to antagonize the couple so they can release more negative energy, beginning a vicious cycle as it increases its strength and leads to the horrifying finale.

Paranormal Activity has been marketed as the “most horrifying film ever,” which is more a sign of the state of horror films than it is about the quality of the film. As demonstrated by the Saw franchise, Hostel, and various other Eli Roth and Rob Zombie films, horror today is all about gore and mutilation. Subtle, creeping horror films have unfortunately been rarities in recent horror cinema, which is a big reason why this film was so overly hyped.

Although it doesn’t quite live up to the “most horrifying” standard, it sure comes close, and its success will hopefully see a flowering of non-gory horror films.

Review: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

Milk premieres tonight on HBO.

Perhaps they could have taken cues from Gus Van Sant’s latest biopic Milk, a film as much about the gay rights movement as it is about title character Harvey Milk. That may be because Milk and the gay rights movement are so intertwined.

Harvey Milk moved to San Francisco from New York in the seventies, seeking refuge from discrimination and misunderstanding and a place where he could build a community that was both tolerant and proactive for gay rights.

That community turned out to be the famous Castro district of San Francisco, a neighborhood still very much defined by a large LGBTA population. Milk settled into the neighborhood, opened a business and then proceeded to launch political campaigns, running for vacant seats on the city council and state assembly.

The role of Harvey Milk is played to perfection by Sean Penn, who captures the nuances and quirks that Milk was known for. But the true appeal of the film stems from the ensemble cast. James Franco and Diego Luna take turns as Milk’s lovers, both delivering inspired performances. Emile Hirsch, the apparent understudy of Sean Penn, joins Alison Pill, Lucas Grabeel and a half dozen others as the campaign staff for Milk’s political bids.

And then of course there’s Josh Brolin, who adds tension and suspense to the role of Assemblyman Dan White. Anyone familiar with the story of Harvey Milk knows how White fits into this whole equation, yet Brolin is able to capture the viewer’s attention and make him question what he thought he knew.

Van Sant gives the movie the feel of a documentary, making use of old footage and occasional shots with a handheld camera. Van Sant is less concerned with the life story of Harvey Milk as he is about the legacy and impact that his life had. Milk is defined in the movie through his actions, not so much by his life story. A police roundup of homosexuals at a bar one night sends Milk to the streets, taking up position atop a plastic crate to calm down residents. A Teamsters boycott of Coors beer leads Milk to craft a surprising alliance between one of the largest unions and the gay community. And continual discrimination leads Milk to run for office several times before he finally manages to secure enough votes.

Watching the movie after the historic elections in 2008 is especially rewarding. It takes very little effort to draw historical comparisons between the film and what transpired both nationally and in California. Thirty years before Proposition 8, there was Proposition 6, the Briggs Initiative that would have banned gay men and women from teaching in public schools. Thirty years before Barack Obama became the first black president, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California.

Go see this movie for entertainment. But watch this movie for the lesson it teaches us.

Milk is available now on DVD, and will begin airing on HBO starting tonight.

Brad Pitt wants his scalps.

Some directors/writers, notably George Lucas, have never been blessed in writing dialogue, and their movies suffer as a result. Tarantino is the polar opposite; he is the master of creating tension despite the length of some of his film’s conversations. There is a wonderful scene in the beginning of the film where Nazi Colonel Hans Landa (also known as the Jew Hunter) genially asks a French farmer in his own house about Jewish families in the area. The farmer hems and haws while Col. Landa subtly threatens the farmer with dire consequences for him and his three daughters. The effect keeps the audience on the edge of their seats trying to see which one will crack first…and then the camera pans down under the wooden floor of the kitchen to reveal a hidden Jewish family, petrified in horror and desperately attempting to keep silent, as the friendly conversation continues overhead The audience’s stress level is ratcheted up, really almost against their will as they wait to see who will win this battle of wills. Tarantino’s other two major trademarks: his tributes to past films and his penchant for violence are also paramount in the film. Inglourious Basterds will remind moviegoers of the Clint Eastwood/Charles Bronson “spaghetti western” films. The twanging banjos in the soundtrack will drive this point home with a sledgehammer to the point of obnoxiousness. Add this to the film noir effect from “Casablanca” and you have one weird film that somehow works.

The advertising for Inglourious Basterds featured Brad Pitt front and center, yet for all of the focus on him and the rest of the “Basterds”, they are barely in half of the film, which is a good thing since they are perhaps the weakest part of the film. Pitt, who portrays Lt. Aldo Raine, is funny, no doubt, but he doesn’t bring anything substantial to his role as leader of the Basterds besides a ridiculous Southern accent and a few well-timed witticisms. Two other actors, the Austrian-born Christoph Waltz and the French-born Melanie Laurent steal the show. Waltz, who portrays the aforementioned Colonel Hans Landa, deserves to earn an Oscar nomination, in my opinion with his portrayal of the genial, charming yet chilling “Jew-hunter”. It is odd that the scariest Nazi is Landa, since Hitler, Goebbels, Bohrmann, and Goering are prominent, but Waltz manages to deliver an affable Nazi who borders on the edge of absurdity, who also masks a terrifying relentlessness, determination and ingenuity. Ms. Laurent portrays the vengeful Jewish survivor Shoshanna, the sole survivor of her family from one of Landa’s hunts, who is running a Parisian theater in disguise as a gentile. After she crosses paths with German war hero Frederick Zoller and Joseph Goebbels in Paris, she commences her plan of revenge along with her African-French boyfriend Marcel. Just like Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill 1 & 2) and Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Laurent is one of Tarantino’s “femme fatales”. The performances by Laurent and Waltz by far the more intriguing portions of the film and it saddens me that “Basterds” were given top billing in the title.

Because Quentin Tarantino has pulled out all of his usual directorial techniques and styles, it appeals to a certain fan base. Simply stated, those who like Tarantino films will love it, but those who do not will consider it trash. Those who are only casually familiar with his work should be reminded that Tarantino definitely has a mind of his own, and will not sacrifice his vision to make his film more palatable to the average filmgoer, which is especially evident in certain portions of the film where he decides to ignore actual history in favor of his own vision. Perhaps it’s not as good as Pulp Fiction, but I would rate it as his second best film.

Review: 4 out of 5 stars