In Memoriam 1942 – 2013 “Roger Ebert loved movies.”

RogerEbert.com

Thumb_office_christmas_party

Office Christmas Party

Another reminder that allowing your cast to madly improvise instead of actually providing a coherent script with a scintilla of inherent logic often leads to…

Thumb_harry_benson_shoot_first

Harry Benson: Shoot First

The filmmakers are themselves too celebrity besotted to comment in a meaningful way on how Benson’s career balanced depictions of the rich and famous with…

Other Reviews
Review Archives
Thumb_xbepftvyieurxopaxyzgtgtkwgw

Ballad of Narayama

"The Ballad of Narayama" is a Japanese film of great beauty and elegant artifice, telling a story of startling cruelty. What a space it opens…

Other Reviews
Great Movie Archives

Reviews

Area 51

Area 51 Movie Review
  |  

Oren Peli is a little obsessed with people going places they don’t belong. Whether it’s the poor travelers in “The Chernobyl Diaries” or the treacherous journey of TV’s “The River,” both of which Peli wrote, the filmmaker has an undeniable interest in those who see the well-defined border, cross it, and suffer the consequences. It’s somewhat ironic that the series for which Peli will likely always be most associated is about people who never leave their home. In 2007, “Paranormal Activity” not only launched a franchise (a SIXTH film called “Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension” is coming out this year, and Peli has been producer on all of them) but essentially spun off another one as Peli tweaked his haunted house formula and produced the “Insidious” films as well. Peli is a horror icon and yet, until today, only one film he has ever directed appeared in theaters. Eight years later, through ridiculous post-production delays and reshoots, “Area 51” is finally here, perhaps trying to avoid the appellation of sophomore slump by taking so long to get to theaters and being relatively unceremoniously released in select theaters and on VOD. Nice try.

Advertisement

Of course, like “Paranormal Activity,” most of “Area 51” looks like DIY, found-footage material, although the film so quickly fails the Why Would They Film That test that it’s best to just consider it a cinematographic choice (like Dogme 95) instead of trying to figure out who’s holding the camera and why. To that end, the shaky-cam, found-footage thing likely wasn’t as played out when Peli started filming “Area 51” in 2009, and the aesthetic here isn’t quite as annoying as it sometimes can be in “Paranormal Activity” wannabes. You won’t need Dramamine.

Three dude-bros go to a party; one dude-bro goes missing. He pops up, horror movie-style, in front of the car of his leaving buddies, not quite looking the same. Three months later, the man-children plan a trip to Vegas, where they will meet someone who will help them infiltrate the legendary Area 51, the Nevada government complex rumored for decades to house proof of alien life. Of course, they need a stop-off at the Hooters Casino first. Before you know it, they’re using night vision cameras and breaking into places they shouldn’t be.

Well, not exactly before you know it. “Area 51” is essentially what we call a Slow Burn horror film, in that most of the bulk of the running time consists of preparation. They talk about the titular location way more than anything else. And there’s a disturbing amount of prep to do—scenes of the boys getting their materials together, scouting the location, dealing with security and eventual knocks on their door in the middle of the night. There’s no tension or action for the longest time and "Area 51" might have been better served as a short film or episode of an anthology series in that the entire first-hour of set-up could have been cut to five minutes. In one mildly entertaining interlude, the film echoes “Willow Creek” a bit when the boys start talking to locals about the alien legend (a la the way Bobcat Goldthwait plays with mythology in the first two acts of his bigfoot film), but Peli isn’t as skilled a filmmaker and the characters here are so paper-thin that I just watched the movie and I’m not sure I could pick them out of a line-up.

Advertisement

Eventually, they get where they’re going and there’s lots of whispering (“Let’s keep moving”) but very little actual threat. When they find a lab with weird blobby things and floating rocks, things start to get more interesting, but that’s not until the hour-mark. Sorry, spoiler I guess, but I’m not sure if it’s really a spoiler if it’s the first interesting thing that happens in a movie. To be fair, the slow burn does eventually catch fire and there’s lots of screaming and heavy breathing and dark tunnels and running and what-not. The relatively tense final half-hour is clearly the reason that very smart producer Jason Blum thought this would be a solid follow-up to “Paranormal Activity.” It’s that first hour that is the reason it took six years to (barely) get released.

Popular Blog Posts

Why Critics Should See Bad Movies

A piece on the experience gained from seeing bad movies.

Who do you read? Good Roger, or Bad Roger?

This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...

The Unloved, Part 36: "Lisztomania"

For the 36th installment in his video essay series about maligned masterworks, Scout Tafoya examines Ken Russell's "L...

Racism, Religion and Remembering Pearl Harbor

Remember Pearl Harbor and remember how prejudice shaped history.

Reveal Comments
comments powered by Disqus