Tod Williams, USA, 2010, 91 min.

There is something deepy terrifying about having a demon attached, not to the house you live in, but to you. No matter where you go, that demon will be with you, physically and spiritually, and will torment you for the rest of your life. There is nothing you could do to stop it.

That is the premise of the first Paranormal Activity, which told the film through the gimmick of “actual footage” of in-movie cameras, both hand-held and stationary. It was an effective little low-budget horror film (only $15,000) , which was smart enough to take its time and avoid shakey cam.

The sequel has the same gimmick (but the budget was $3 million, how does that happen?) It also destroys the terrifying hook of the first film by inventing a stupid backstory for the demon and a way to link this film to the first. There was no need to explain things, the idea mentioned above is scary enough as it is.

That being said, it also takes a very long time to get to some actual tension. The number of each night in the film is noted on the screen and it isn’t until Night #11 that something significant actually happens. It’s the rare time when I wanted a film to stop building mood and actually get to a payoff.

This was a film that had no reason being made except to get some quick bucks. You always hope in those situations that the director will take the opportunity to make the film his or her own, or at least to do something new. That wasn’t the case.

Rumor has it that Brian De Palma was at one point approached to direct. Now that would have been something to see.

This film wins the award “Biggest Waste of  Three Million Dollars.” Seriously? This movie cost that much money? Dead Alive only cost $2.5 and look at the difference!

Lucky McKee, USA, 2011, 101 min.

A hunter gazes through his scope at the woman: Young, dirty, a wild animal. She is in no way attractive, covered in grime and open wounds, but he sees past that to the sexual beast he knows she is. You can feel that he has to have her.

For that scene to work you have to believe the character of the hunter, in actuality a well-off family man with a wife and three kids, is capable of those thoughts and deeds. The opening of the film sets that up well. We see him in his life, normal on the outside, but with undercurrents of something sinister. The face of his poor wife and eldest daughter show more than they are letting on.

So when he captures the woman and locks her up in the storm cellar for “rehabilitation”, and when the family is a bit surprised but goes along with it, you believe it. Because of the tone of the script and the subtlety involved in setting this up, you can buy into the film.

If that strong opening gave the film-makers some leeway, they soon squander it. Things go along well for awhile: some disturbing scenes, tension-building, mystery surrounding true motivations, etc. But at some point the story doesn’t know what to do next. Characters perform strange actions and a reveal comes that was unearned.

The movie would have been better served concentrating on the family scenes with the domineering father: the scary Sean Bridgers. Or concentrating on the daughter and her dynamic with the young hip high school teacher: the very cool Carlee Baker.

But instead we get something made to shock us. But in this day and age, when potential shock is everywhere you look, I want something more than the standard gore/torture film. Unfortunately, after a promising opening, that is all The Woman has to offer.

This film wins the award “Coolest High School Teacher” for Carlee Barker playing a teacher any highschooler would love to have.

Peter Jackson, USA, 1996, 123 min.

There is energy behind The Frighteners. It’s the fun, gleeful energy brought by a director who grew up loving to make movies with his friends. And it’s an energy that is not diminished by the structure of Hollywood, due to producers who also have that same gleam in their eyes.

Michael J. Fox stars as a man with the power to see spirits, and makes friends with two of them so he can run a fraudulent paranormal investigation business. But he soon uncovers a spirit who is a real danger for all of the living in the town. The story is sufficiently complicated to deliver non-stop action, surprises, humor, and special effects.

It could have been a muddled mess, but all of this is deftly handled by Jackson. The special effects still look good and are a real accomplishment for the time. Jackson knows how to use them and how to integrate them with real footage, which most directors today don’t know how to do. The whole film is a lot of fun, with in-jokes and atmosphere and a genuinely exciting pace. It’s an over-looked gem of the genre and would make for great viewing this Halloween.

This film wins the award “Car With Least Traction” for Bannister’s slippery yellow sliding vehicle.

Ewald André Dupont, USA, 1953, 71 min.

Fifties Hollywood churned out just as much studio dreck as the Hollywood of today. But through the filter of a couple decades most of that has been forgotten. Problem Girls is one of those films that shouldn’t have made it through. But somehow it appeared on TCM.

The acting by third-tier studio players is poor, the direction is muddled and the editing is doing its best to tie together a poorly shot picture. This must be due to the production value, as the film was probably shot over a few days on its simple studio sets. I’m guessing the post-production team had their work cut out to make the results into a feature.

The story is very convoluted. A doctor takes a job at a school for troubled girls and winds up stumbling onto a den of sin: murder, kidnapping, brainwashing, girl-fights, torture, erotic piano playing, etc. I make it sound sensational. It isn’t.

Apart from the image above all of these things are presented quickly and without fanfare. It’s as if the film-makers were putting these things into the movie in order to check them off a list. All that does is make for a good poster, not a good film.

This movie wins the award “Least Believable Epilogue” for, well, the most forced happy ending I have ever seen.

Nicolas Winding Refn, USA, 2011, 100 min.

Drive is an enigma of a film. The story is straight action/thriller. Nicolas Winding Refn’s direction is art-house European/Hollywood. The character’s are one-note with a purpose. The music is offbeat but strangly fitting. It is many genres and none at the same time.

But the film works. Largely due to the way Ryan Gosling plays the driver. A quiet character, he clearly knows what his immediate needs are and acts on them. It’s quite interesting to watch him move and express himself within the context of the story.

The film is well-paced and the action and characters are well-executed. It’s hard to tell what the theme is, but the film is obviously very traditionally masculine. I beleive that was an important feeling they were trying to get across. They definitely did, and the results are effecient, entertaining and thought provoking.

This film wins the award “Most Masculine Film” for being a story about a man who drives cars alot and protects a family by committing physical violence.