Michael Jackson’s This Is It

The poster for Michael Jackson’s This Is It.

As Printed in The Lumberjack on November 5, 2009

by Gary Sundt

My generation knows a very different Michael Jackson than those before us. I was born in 1988, just after sensational reports about his physical transformation began to surface. My first memories of the King of Pop have nothing to do with “Thriller,” charity, Pepsi-Cola or the Jackson 5; it was 1993, and Jacko was being called a nut job who sexually abused young boys. My parents listened to The Beatles and Bette Midler, so I didn’t get to earn a respect for the man and his music until I was in high school.

Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, a mere eight days before his 50-date “This Is It” tour was to begin — his first in nearly two decades and what was to be his “final curtain call.” The film Michael Jackson’s This Is It is a collection of footage shot during the preparation in the months leading up to the event. It features the dancers, choreographers, set designers, accompanying musicians, musical directors, the show’s director (Kenny Ortega) and, of course, Jackson himself — all working with the assumption that the show will go on without interruption.

There is a buzz about the film that suspects it is merely cashing in on Jackson’s death. But contrary to expectation, the sight of the late musician does not resemble a marionette corpse dancing for a mob of paying patrons. Instead, This Is It shows Jackson alive and thriving, still singing and dancing better than anyone else on the stage. We see his interactions with the show’s cast and crew, revealing the soft-spoken and polite nature the man showed in public was no act. Jackson is courteous to those around him, patient with those who misunderstand and misstep, and completely up for the challenge of putting on a larger-than-life performance at the tender age of 50.

The footage in This Is It was assembled under the direction of Ortega by the top editors at Sony Entertainment. It would be reasonable to assume the movie would be working to reflect on the artist’s achievements or explain/mask his controversy with a façade. Such is not the case. This Is It attempts the impossible task of bringing the would-be final performance of a great artist to his fans, and while it may seem too long at times and too strange in others (the rainforest bit will make more than a few heads tilt in confusion), the film succeeds. The movie does right by focusing on the performance’s preparation without hindsight or interpretation, and it offers the confused masses a look at Jackson that, if the show had actually taken place, may never have been seen.

This Is It will not make anyone forget the Wacko Jacko legacy, but how could it? The little boy controversies, the plastic surgery, the holding of his newborn child over a balcony, the fact that he named said child Blanket — it’s obvious this guy had issues. But the night Jackson died, I was out dancing to his hits in the downtown Flagstaff bars, and I had a similar experience when I was at the San Diego Comic-Con a few weeks later. When watching This Is It, I couldn’t help but dance in the theater seat.

The film isn’t designed to make people forget, but rather to remind us how gifted the troubled artist truly was. The world probably just wouldn’t be the same without the King of Pop, and while he might have been a crazy person, his diamond-studded glove shines a little less bright now that he’s gone.

Rating: 4 stars

Directed by Kenny Ortega. Starring Michael Jackson and the cast and crew of the “This Is It” production. and Running time: 112 minutes. Rated PG.

Paranormal Activity

Spooky stuff happens in Paranormal Activity.

As Printed in The Lumberjack on October 29, 2009

by Gary Sundt

Paranormal Activity is rated R, though there isn’t entirely any real reason why. Yes, there is a certain expletive uttered once — perhaps twice — during the film’s entire running time. But other than that, there is no excessive blood or gore, no nudity of any kind, no reason for the movie to have an R rating. Nothing, of course, except that the movie is scarier than hell.
Yeah, that could be why Paranormal Activity gets an R rating.
In the same vein as The Blair Witch Project, the film has no opening or closing credits, instead simply offering the viewer a small note at the start thanking the families of those on screen. The footage begins to roll home movie-style, and we learn that the main characters, Micah (Micah Sloat) and Katie (Katie Featherston), are a young couple who have recently been experiencing strange paranormal activity while they sleep. Micah is the one who decides to videotape all the events and is the cameraman most of the time. Whether this footage is for proof, monetary gains or sheer posterity is never fully explained, but it’s a reason for us to see what is happening to these rather unfortunate people.
Most of the “action” occurs while the couple is in bed and asleep. The camera sits on a tripod for long stretches of time while the audience observes what happens at night. These events are hinted at in the film’s advertisements, and I certainly won’t be spoiling them here. In most reviews, it is appropraite to go into some detail as to what a viewer has in store for themselves, but doing so in this case would rob potential viewers of an opportunity to actually be surprised and engrossed by the brilliance of the moviemaking at work here. The implication is that I’m not merely recommending Paranormal Activity; I’m insisting you go see it if you are interested in actually being scared. If you simply want to know what happens, go to Wikipedia and be that guy (you know who you are).
Paranormal Activity is written and directed by Oren Peli and was made on a budget of $15,000. The development of the characters and the simplicity of their plight is what makes the movie scary. This is the type of flick that is designed to look like a home-movie, carrying with it a certain degree of realism because the special effects simply don’t look like special effects — this stuff looks real.
Last year’s Cloverfield and Quarantine were two other examples of the home-horror movie phenomenon. They are good, but not great; they can be spooky, but never downright terrifying. Those who think they are haven’t seen movies like this. There is a certain perfection in the simplicity of movies like Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project, in which atmosphere, performances and sound effects are used to their utmost effect to shake audiences to their very core.
There are people who will disagree with me, saying Paranormal Activity isn’t scary in the least. Maybe what scares people is entirely arbitrary, or maybe these folks need blood and gore to feel real fear. In that case, go see Saw XXVII.
All I can say is I was freaked, and my girlfriend balled her eyes out. Ours was a midnight showing, and we didn’t get to bed until around 3:30 a.m. because she was completely wigged. If that isn’t an endorsement for a horror film, I don’t quite know what is.

Written and directed by Oren Peli. Starring Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat and Mark Fredrichs. Running time: 86 minutes. Rated R.

Where the Wild Things Are

Max (Max Records) and KW (Lauren Ambrose) look at each other in Where the Wild Things Are.

Where the Wild Things Are is nothing short of a visual and narrative masterpiece. The film is ostensibly designed for children, but the central story — when mined just beneath the surface — is a rich and complex tale better suited for adults. And why shouldn’t there be a children’s movie for grown-ups? Most people can admit they have a lot of lessons still to learn, and even some basic teachings that could use a refresher.

The film is directed and co-written by Spike Jonze and is based on the nine-sentence children’s book by Maurice Sendak. The story is about young Max, who, after being sent to bed without supper by his mother, uses his elaborate imagination to travel by sea to the island where the Wild Things are. The creatures are giant furry beasts (with features similar to bears, goats, birds and whatever else a child’s mind would choose to throw in), and they quickly declare Max their king.

Stating the source is only nine sentences long is to also suggest with some certainty that the story is very short, and hardly warrants a feature length film treatment. But the script by Jonze and Dave Eggers digs deeper than the original premise and unearths a wonderfully sweet, yet utterly heartbreaking film.

Consider Max (Max Records), who has been developed into a fully realized depiction of childhood: the irrational anger toward adults and their mistakes; the robust talk in the face of adversity; to be laughing one moment over something small, and in tears the next over something just as minute; etc. He finds little solace in his single mother (Catherine Keener), who is too busy with work, and his teenage sister (Pepita Emmerichs), who is too busy with being a teenager.

And what about the Wild Things themselves? Sendack’s art made them monstrous indeed, too scary for kids in some cases, and the live action delineations are not far from the original source. These creatures were and are drawn as mere extensions of Max’s conflicted personality. While the characterization in the book is mostly limited to a “monster walk,” the film develops the Wild Things into fully-fledged representations of Max’s complex cinematic identity, and they individually present the boy with unique challenges as their leader.

The Wild Things are as follows: Carol (James Gandolfini), Max’s favorite and the self-proclaimed leader; Judith (Catherine O’Hara), the know-it-all; Alexander (Paul Dano), the short and ignored Wild Thing; the pleasant Ira (Forest Whitaker); the obedient Douglas (Chris Cooper); and the loving and reasonable KW (Lauren Ambrose). Jonze and Co. have utilized a perfect combination of practical and computer-generated special effects, and the monsters and their environment feel as tangible as any creation in cinema history.

There is a tremendous amount of symbolism in Where the Wild Things Are, and there might be a deeper understanding of basic human nature than general audiences are used to from a “children’s film.” One of the film’s strengths is the careful detail taken to analyze simple events in the human experience. While this focus on simplicity may polarize and confuse audiences, I think it injects into the piece one of the more honest stories ever in a big-budget Hollywood release.

I said at the start this was a film better suited for adults, and perhaps that’s true. But speaking as an adult, Where the Wild Things Are brought out the kid in me, and by that I mean all the joys, sorrows, triumphs and defeats that go with that mindset. I rarely become completely immersed in a film the way I was absorbed by Max and his Wild Things, and I think anybody willing to go the distance for a little adventure might feel the same way.

Rating: 5 stars

Directed by Spike Jonze. Written by Jonze and Dave Eggers. Starring Max Records, Catherine Keener and James Gandolfini. Running time: 101 minutes. Rated PG.

9

This is the 2005 short film that inspired the new feature-length movie, 9. WARNING: This flick contains spoilers for the new movie.

9, the new film from director Shane Acker and producer Tim Burton, wants to inform us that technology will be our downfall, but also our resurrection. This is probably true of the human race, but has come to fruition even more immediately in the world of moviemaking. Modern filmmakers ignore originality of story and character development in favor of as many big explosions as they can fit into 90 minutes. On the flip-side, this technology has also been able to bring the complex and awe-inspiring visions of real artists to the big screen. Meanwhile, the standard movie-going audience sits in limbo, on one hand celebrating intellectually dead films like Transformers 2, then recognizing masterpieces and near-masterpieces like Star Trek, WALL-E or The Dark Knight.

Interestingly enough, 9 sits comfortably between these two paradigms. Acker’s visual goals are remarkable, as made evident from the opening frames, where old fingers work to put the finishing touches on a rag doll, both roughly human and curiously alien, the number “9” stitched into its back. Soon after, this creature (Elijah Wood) comes to life, and views the devastated remains of the human world with its inquisitive binocular eyes for the first time. However, the story soon gets underway, and as we meet the other rag dolls, numbered 1 thru 8, and learn of the plight of the now-extinct human race, we see the movie’s relatively familiar premise, and 9 becomes a rather curious experience.

The characters in 9 are very clearly defined despite how similar they are in appearance. For example, 5 (John C. Rielly) is intelligent yet terrified, accordingly obedient to those who appear smarter than he, while 1 (Christopher Plummer) acts as the self-proclaimed leader of the crew, and comes off as stubborn as he does assured. These sketches, as defined by the script by Acker and Corpse Bride scribe Pamela Pettler, are pieces of a whole personality, as easily recognizable as they can be predictable. This makes the characters fight against the film’s villain, The Beast (the man-made machine that destroyed the human race), almost entirely unsurprising, because we know these stereotypes all to well and everything they are about to do. While this ends up being necessary to the film’s central premise, this fragmentation causes the protagonists to be less fully-realized than their detailed appearances might indicate, dragging the pace of 9 down substantially.

The movie is not necessarily a disappointment, but as the film came to a close, I found myself wanting more. The movie is an expansion of Acker’s short film of the same name, which garnered him an Oscar nomination in 2006, and the visual promise and promising themes of that film alone warranted not only a viewing, but further exploration and analysis. But the story doesn’t stretch well to feature-length due simply to the fact that all of the film’s original ideas appeared in the 10:30 short subject.

The result is a film both marveling and unamazing; grandiose in vision but limited in scale. Does this make 9 unworthy of a viewing? Hardly — the visuals really are quite remarkable. But if you are looking for something as innovative as those visuals inherently promise, then I’m afraid you’ve barked up the wrong tree. Like the film’s protagonists, 9 is fragmented, all-together incomplete, and one hopes that Acker comes to the table with something more unique with his future endeavors.

Star Rating: 3.5

Gamer

Gerard Butler holds a knife all menacingly at Michael C. Hall in Gamer.

As Printed in The Lumberjack on Sept. 10, 2009.

by Gary Sundt

This is a review of Gamer, the new film from Crank writer/directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor.

In 1987, Arnold Schwarzenegger and director Paul Michael Glaser made a little movie called The Running Man. The film told the story of a totalitarian future where criminals would have the opportunity to earn their freedom if they survived a reality TV show entitled “The Running Man.” Schwarzenegger played a falsely-accused cop who became the show’s next contestant. The now-govenor had to do battle with all sorts of brutes and the TV show’s host (who betrayed him at some point and was the reason he was in prison in the first place) in order to fight his way to freedom.

Gamer is the exact same story, with the replacement of “reality TV show” with “video game,” “The Running Man” with “Stalkers,” and “Arnold Schwarzenegger” with “Gerard Butler.”

Moving on.

In The Running Man, Schwarzenegger joins up with some people who act as a resistance to the show’s host, Damon Killian (Richard Dawson). Their mission is to change the mind of the public and reveal the truth about Killian’s evil plans and Schwarzenegger’s character’s innocence.

Gamer (shockingly) is about the same thing, but features Ludacris as the leader of the resistance, and Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall) in the place of Killian. And while the comparisons certainly don’t end there, I think my point is made.

Now, I’m not saying that homage is a bad thing. Who doesn’t like a good throwback now and again? But I think there’s a pretty big difference between making a respectful reference, and blatant thievery. Go back and watch The Running Man and realize that these writer/directors should have a lawsuit coming to them, because unless they paid some royalties to Glaser and Co., they made the same damn movie.

There are some original ideas in Gamer, such as their real-life turn on The Sims, and the rather fancy cinematography (a talent the filmmakers’ showed in their highly original Crank and its sequel, Crank: High Voltage). However, Neveldine and Taylor show the unfortunate tendency of modern day filmmakers of putting the camera before the story. Simply telling the tale of a world where gamers control other real people in a realistic environment, or focusing on the video game players themselves rather than the brutes they control, is original enough to create a solid narrative.

Instead, we get a movie we’ve already seen before, and will probably see again. And all the nifty camera angles, all the small ideas, all the sex and blood they can throw at the camera, none of it can hide the fact that Gamer is simply a bad rip off of an older, better movie.