Haven’t even seen it. But it’s going to be that good.
Scary
Prometheus – 4 stars
Ridley’s Scott’s prequel to the Alien series fares much better than troubled installments 3 and 4 (which were not directed by Scott). It does so without reliance on the now famed Alien monster or creation of another “haunted house in space” where the crew is picked off one-by-one. Instead, Scott’s film opens with an ambitious recreation of the demise of our creators (or, at least, our forefathers). In 2089, two scientists (Noomi Rapace and Logan Marshall-Green) deduce that disparate human societies with no connection and at different intervals in the world’s history communicated with another species (or is it?) from space. So off they go, with another crew on an epic journey to discover from whence we came. A cool Charlize Theron is in charge of the vessel Prometheus, but the ship is helmed by the down-home Idris Elba and it is guided by an android, David (Michael Fassbender). They find what they are looking for but it is not what they thought, and Alien is born.
For what could have been a ponderous big idea picture, this movie is very tight, and if never quite as horrifying as Scott’s first movie, it is tense, scary and moody. The feel is enhanced by a brooding, foreboding Marc Streitenfeld score. Moreover, the characters feel gritty and realistic and each adds nice touches to roles that could otherwise have been stale. Elba’s Stephen Stills-liking captain of the ship is an old soul; Theron’s corporate master hides a sense of humor; and Fassender, to whom one of the scientists makes a Pinnochio-reference, is half-boy in wonderment and half-efficient, emotionless machine, a worthy addition to the fine line of Alien androids who came before:


Ian Holm

Lance Henriksson
Scott also cleverly borrows from his own Blade Runner in the portrayal of David, who doesn’t possess Rutger Hauer’s maniacal desire to find his creator but does show more than a passing interest in the subject matter.
The script provides some explanation for why we started creating androids who are more than automatons:
Charlie Holloway: David, why are you wearing a suit, man?
David: I beg your pardon?
Charlie Holloway: You don’t breath, remember? So, why wear the suit?
David: I was designed like this, because you people are more comfortable interacting with your own kind. If I didn’t wear the suit, it would defeat the purpose.
Charlie Holloway: Making you guys pretty close, huh?
David: Not too close I hope.
Scott bites off a little more than he can chew by adding an unnecessary twist at the end, and thereby rushing some scenes that could have been better developed. It also has a few silly notes, like throwing in Rapace’s inability to get pregnant and having Rapace tell a crewmember he can’t bring a weapon because the mission is scientific . . . and he complies. Come on! Doesn’t he know that in space, no one can hear you scream?
Otherwise, it’s a very good picture, enhanced by the 3D.
The Shining – 4.75 stars

First things first. I took my son to see The Shining at the American Film Institute Theater in Silver Spring, Maryland (they are running a Jack Nicholson retrospective). The theater is ornate and massive and brings back the feel and style of the old movie house.
But not even the hallowed ground of a theater honoring film can persuade people to behave in a respectful fashion during a movie. We had two fools in the front who found particular dramatic scenes funny and laughed and laughed and laughed . . . and laughed some more. We also had two couples to our right who presumed if a character wasn’t talking, that was their cue to talk. Stanley Kubrick films have long stretches of no dialogue.
Going to films is more and more difficult given the crude behavior of movie patrons, who cannot shut th f*** up, are now eating full meals during the show, and are otherwise oblivious to anyone around them. Worse, those who are quiet, including myself, are often forced to simply accept the noise. I have interceded a few times. It has worked less often than not, because if you correct a young person in public, apparently, that is a humiliation too great to endure, and what follows is aggression and louder “I paid my ticket” talking. Now, I’ve made the film less enjoyable for additional rows.
Okay. To the movie. Kubrick’s picture is methodical and creepy, It opens abruptly with an aerial shot of Jack Torrance (Nicholson) driving for his interview at the Overlook Hotel to an ominous electronic score (think John Carpenter). Torrance gets the job as the hotel’s winter caretaker, where he esconces his timid wife (Shelly Duvall) and his son (Danny Lloyd), who has the ability to see visions and occasionally communicate with like-talented people (i.e., he “shines”) such as the hotel’s head chef, Scatman Crothers. Danny’s ability is also telling him that the Overlook Hotel is dangerous, a fact Crothers confirms. Soon, the hotel insinuates itself into Torrance’s mind, turns him against his family, and he goes berserk.
The film is very scary, often terrifying. Kubrick gives us the time to get to know the family, and all is not well: Torrance has had recent problems with drink, injuring Danny in the process. He is also a condescending prick, which in turn makes his wife more jittery, which in turns makes Torrance angrier and more removed. With this fodder, the spirits of the hotel work themselves on Nicholson.
The imagery is unforgettable, be it Danny riding his big wheel (tracked by stedicam) through the halls of the Overlook, only to bump into gruesome visions, or the forbidding snow-covered hedge maze, the locale for the final scene. Lloyd is very good: he is withdrawn but sweet, trying to deal with a wretched home life and an amazing but confusing gift. Duvall, whose performance has been criticized as annoying (she was nominated for a Razzie), is, in fact, very annoying, but it is a great performance nonetheless. She is trying to hold the family together, as Nicholson is trying to destroy it, and her worry feeds his suspicion. The hotel has to work on something; it has to find an “in” to get to Nicholson, which it does through Duvall, who is nervous and peppy and cloying. Obviously, she doesn’t deserve to be murdered. But the spirits of the hotel don’t need to much to convince Nicholson.
The only partial negative is Nicholson. He’s very good as a man driven to insanity, but the performance has two faults. First, Nicholson does not show much to recommend him when he has full sanity. He’s superior and sarcastic and he doesn’t connect with his family. As such, when he is enticed by the hotel, there’s not much of struggle there. He’s ready to fix them up right and there really was no question. Second, there are too many “Heeeeeeere’s Johnnies” in his performance. Nicholson goes so over-the-top that he becomes cartoonish. Still, it’s a minor criticism and presumes the necessity of a struggle for Nicholson’s soul.
The Innkeepers – 3.75 stars
The pushback on the gore porn of Saw, Hostel, etc . . . is in full swing. The Paranormal Activity flicks, The Woman in Black, Trick ‘r Treat, The Last Exorcism, and now, The Innkeepers all fall in a sub-genre that emphasizes pace, suspense and the little things that do not require splatter, chunks of flesh and no possible hope of escape.
The Innkeepers is about a haunted Connecticut inn on its last legs. Two slacker employees (there are 3 guests and the workers can’t manage to have clean towels for any of them), one of whom is working on a website trying to trumpet the inn as a haunted locale, do 12 hour shifts on the inn’s last weekend in operation. Bored, and stoked by a guest (Kelly McGillis) who is some sort of amateur medium in town for a convention, the duo pass the time filming and recording the inn in an attempt to engage its ghost. They succeed, and the patience director Ti West exhibits in getting to a truly scary payoff is impressive.
It’s not flawless. The principals are a bit stilted, though they warm to their roles; the humor is not always humorous; the character development is not super; and I wish we were given a little bit more on the history of the ghost. But the strength is the feel and that feel is well-represented in the trailer.
Also, one caution – remember Kelly McGillis from Witness?

This is McGillis from The Innkeepers

Paranormal Activity 3 – 4.5 stars

I cover the first two pictures here: www.filmvetter.com/2012/04/30/paranormal-activityparanormal-activity-2-4-stars/
Nothing new to report, except that installment three is even scarier. One particular trick of note: while trying to capture the “ghost” on videotape and cover two rooms, our hero puts a camera on an oscillating fan, so it goes from left to right and back again slowly. Brilliant. Everytime you get that vantage point, you’re terrified of what will be in frame.
Paranormal Activity 1 & 2 – 4 stars
Gore porn (Hostel, Saw, etc . . . ) has taken over the scary movie market, and in that genre, the more grisly, authentic and perverse a killing, the better. There is never any question of escape for the protagonists. Almost all (if not all ) will be sacrificed, mutilated, or both so that a potential franchise is not suffocated in the crib.
Films that truly create a creepy sense of dread are dinosaurs. In The Exorcist, for example, none of William Friedken’s visual frights happen for nearly an hour. The head spinning, pea-soup vomiting and levitating all follow a rigorous exposition on the characters, the time, Catholic theology, medical inquiry and the growing mystery that surrounds a little girl who keeps getting sicker. There is no chance such a film in its current form would be greenlit today. The best Friedken could hope for would be an early shot of pea-soup vomiting followed by flashback.
Sue me, but I’m a fan of horror film foreplay, which explains my enthusiasm for this years’ The Woman in Black and the Paranormal Activity films (I’ve seen 1 and 2, but not the third installment). The premise is simple. Modern day characters live in homes haunted by demons. The story is recorded ala’ The Blair Witch Project (in the first Paranormal film, one of the residents starts with a handheld camera and when things get spooky, sets up a few security cameras to validate his claims of the supernatural at work; in the second film, after the house is ransacked, the owners also install internal security cameras, supplemented by a teenage daughter’s video journal).

The effect is chilling though very little happens for awhile. A hanging pot falls. Doors swing open. Shadows appear. And curious noises emit. In both films, however, the demon is aggravated even as we learn the source of its existence, and from there, things move with alarming speed. Adding to the fear is the use of unknown actors. Because they look like you in a wedding video or security cam, you feel more vulnerable.
Sure, some of their decisions are questionable. But when demons infest your house, you’re allowed a few bad decisions.
Attack the Block – 3.75 Stars

An alien drops into the middle of a South London mugging (5 public housing thugs are dispossessing a young woman of her belongings). The alien is a cross between a wolf and Gollum. The boys chase it down and kill it. Apparently, it was well-thought of, because shortly thereafter, a whole bunch of these things come from space for revenge. Good, scary fun, a few good lines, and tense action sequences, not terribly marred by some unnecessary suggestions of the poor plight of London’s youth, forced to mug and terrorize by the inequities of an uncaring society.
The Woman in Black – 4 stars

I took my daughter and her friends to see this chiller. Daniel Radcliffe graduated from Hogwarts and has attained a position as a turn-of- the-century barrister in England. He’s recently widowed and is tasked with the unenviable assignment of winding up the estate of a recently deceased woman in the English countryside. The moment he gets in to town, he starts seeing creepy things and children start dying.
The plot is thin but serviceable, Radcliffe has some range (his recent stint hosting Saturday Night, Live was very good) and he’s helped by Ciaran Hinds, but most importantly, this movie scared the crap out of me. There is one creepy and/or jarring visual after another, a constant sense of dread, and many inventive ways to get your skin to crawl. The Woman in Black is half ghost story, half haunted house ride. Best of all, no gore porn torture, just good, clean spooky fun. More of a ride than a film. We had a blast.
The Haunting – 0 stars

How bad? Shortly after release, Liam Neeson told a magazine that The Phantom Menace was his last film (he recanted shortly thereafter). I’m guessing Neeson’s despair had nothing to do with The Phantom Menace. This is the kind of film that makes me think Alec Baldwin was lying when he told Charlie Rose that when a film doesn’t work out, “it’s not like we planned to make an awful picture.” The Haunting is made more wretched because it is purports to be a remake of an excellent supernatural, psychological thriller from 1963.
The Minus Man – 4 stars
![]()
A sweet serial killer film, if such a thing is possible. Owen Wilson plays a drifter who poisons his victims. He is a gentle soul with a horrific secret, a man-child who comes into the lives of several characters in pain (in particular, Mercedes Ruehl and Brian Cox playing parents grieving the departure of what appaers to be their teenage daughter) and provides them what appears ito be support, all the while practicing his craft.
This is an offbeat, even sleepy picture, wholly reliant on Wilson’s quirky, dream-like performance, which I found riveting.
