Hubble 3D (2010, d. Toni Myers)
There isn’t much going on at the movie theater this week so I got dragged kicking and screaming to Hubble 3D which has been hanging around our local IMAX for months. Pretty neat, I have to admit.
Leonardo DiCaprio narrates this 45 minute doc. Half of the film follows NASA astronauts on a 2009 space walk mission to repair the storied, giant telescope. The other half is impressive 3D sequences of distant gallaxies through Hubble’s eye. The experience is spectacular and I think Hollywood has a lot of catching up to do given some of the recent $15 dollar 2 1/2 D chazerai their bringing out lately.
I do have a couple of caveats. First, Hubble in reality takes 2D, black and white pictures and I think the film needs to be more upfront about that. What we’re watching are “visualizations”, computer painted 3D models rendered from Hubble photography. Second, at just 45 minutes running time, I found certain details of the Hubble story discounted. We’re told it will be the final mission to repair Hubble. Why? Last, despite all the flux-capacitor type babble about Hubble’s delicate technology I still have no idea what the astronauts were repairing. I would gladly sit through an additional 15 minutes to find out. Instead the film’s emphasis is that it’s just really important it get repaired precisely and in a hurry or the mission will be catastrophic failure. This is what film critic Anthony Lane would call a binding rule of melodrama: all escapes shall be narrow, no more than the breadth of a hair. To save oneself and others at one’s leisure, with room to spare, would be an insult to the satisfaction of the moment. So it is with Hubble 3D that every stuck bolt, every literal turn of a screw balances success and disaster on the head of a pin. Again, what are the consequences?
link to video on the production of Huble 3D images:
link to trailer:
Paranormal Activity 2 (2010, d. Tod Williams)
Chubby Checker’s “The Twist” went to #1 on the Billboard charts twice. His sequel “Let’s Twist, Again” only made it to #8. Paranormal Activity, from 2009, was derivative of other horror movies using hand-held video and a found-footage conceit, but it was a creative twist. As for Paranormal Activity 2, I’m sorry, but sequel, prequel… whatever, you don’t get credit for making the same movie twice.
A married couple brings their newborn baby home to their suburban dramatization, and unhealthily video tapes every living moment of their unextraordinary lives. After the house is curiously vandalised, but not robbed, they install an elaborate security camera system that documents every inch of their laminate and Oak Express interiors. So, most of the found-footage from this point on comes via those cameras (which actually helps to address a lot of the “if their so freaked out why do they keep filming it?” criticisms). What we see, from our fly on the wall view, is the hour by hour behavior of some evil apparition, a demon in the house, gradually more and more ornery. Mostly the demon comes in the form of a crescendo of audience-jarring noises. At the beginning of the movie we hear a snap. By the middle is ascends to a crackle. And finally, near the end, the intense pop! My question is, if the demon is so pissed off, why doesn’t he just start terrorizing the family at full volume? Eventually it’s revealed that the demon is after the baby. Well, he should just ask for it. Instead we have 90 minutes of the same wondering when something’s going to happen , the same zombie lady standing around possessed for hours sped-up – all the same spooky tricks used in PA1. In between there’s the continuation of the vague, cursed family back story that has really nothing to do with what’s happening in front of us.
Paranormal Activity 2 operates on this marinating model to build dramatic impact. That would be fine if it weren’t the exact same drama building device they used in the first movie. I don’t dislike Paranormal Activity 2. I just think my movie dollar should stretch farther.
The Last Exorcism (2010, d. Daniel Stamm)
Most faux documentaries are phonies. I don’t mean to state the obvious. I mean to say that a sub-genre of horror films (and an innovation in internet marketing) was started in 1999 with the Blair Witch Project. Blair was the first, to my knowledge, to incorporate elements of cinema vérité, reality television, and teen-oriented horror into a truly different kind of scary movie. It spawned many off-spring most of which are either Blair knock offs – The Last Horror Movie, June 9 – or routine horror narratives wearing a hand-held camera for post-modern disguise – Cloverfield, Rec, The Fourth Kind. What was neat about Blair, and what I like about The Last Exorcism is that the phony documentary conceit isn’t just a different way of telling a story, it’s that the making of a supposed documentary and the fictional filmmakers themselves are the story. The Last Exorcism doesn’t exhibit the, now overdone, “true story” or “found footage” artifice. There’re all fake. We know that. In this one the hand-held camera, in real time, is our voyeuristic guide into a very weird mystery. We also identify with the documentary filmmaker characters themselves who get over their heads in dilemmas of ethics and personal responsibility, and in attempting to determine what is real.
Cotton is an evangelical preacher who has had a crisis of religious doubt. He is now an admitted huckster in his longtime use of magic tricks, con-artistry and performance, particularly in the stagecraft of demonic exorcism. Cotton is getting out of the phony exorcism business and brings in a video crew to document his last exorcism; his last production. Cotton and crew stumble into helping a rural Louisiana family, whose teenage daughter has been slaughtering livestock while purportedly in the trance of a demonic possession. Cotton attempts to sell an effective exorcism but circumstances reveal the girl and her family have very complicated psychological and inter-personal problems. The documentary from this point explores a numbers of mysteries: Is the girl’s so-called possession in actuality the product of abuse or mental illness? Are members of her family and people from the local town representing themselves truthfully? Most important, is she really possessed by a demon or is the video crew capturing her performance; her lie? The layers of mystery within the confines of the story are as thick as a Bayou swamp. And don’t forget the film’s mediated interaction with us, the audience. It’s only pretending to be a documentary. This is a lie horror fans have apparently now come to accept without other truthy marketing gimmicks, as would the audience of a musical or professional wrestling.
An interesting thing about The Last Exorcism in its unrehearsed documentary abstraction, it’s also an excellent piece of screen writing. The plot and the dialogue have a very sophisticated way of keeping you wondering what in Hell is going on, trust me. That being said, I don’t want to say too much. I’m docking the movie half a point on my scale for its ending. I think the story leads its characters into a very difficult moral trap. That’s the challenge of good drama and I have to say that the last two minutes feels tacked on and, well, artificial. I’ll be positive and call it the shocking last twist. I’m putting The Last Exorcism on my list as qualifying for the top 10 movies of the year. Can you believe that?