Review: WAITING FOR "SUPERMAN"

Sometimes movies are not meant to entertain. Sometimes they are meant to open eyes. Such is the case for Waiting For “Superman,” recipient of the Best Documentary award at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival.

Waiting For “Superman” dedicates itself to the sad state of public education in America, following five young students as they struggle to earn the education they deserve in the face of hardship. Director and narrator Davis Guggenheim takes his audience through the students’ rough streets of Harlem, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles and asks, “do our country’s ongoing social and economical problems stem from our educational system?” With interviews from social activist/educator Geoffrey Canada and former chancellor of D.C. public schools Michelle Rhee fueling the film, Guggenheim is able to present facts and figures that seek to answer this question.

If ever there was a subject to deeply upset me, this is the one. As a student who was fortunate enough to attend decent public schools in decent settings, I never really had to worry about being let down by my teachers the way the kids featured in this documentary do. Throughout most of the film, Guggenheim does well to inform the audience without playing the violin too loudly, a balance that is difficult to find when discussing something so heartbreaking. The statistics he offers, often accompanied by creative animations, are used to keep up momentum while serving as a breather from the depressing interviews given by the students and their parents. However, the balance falls off by the final 30 minutes of the film when the only content invading the screen is shot after shot of (the majority of) the students being denied entry into better schools. This addition plays on the audience’s emotions and detracts from the rest of the documentary, making Guggenheim come off as a less angry, more sympathetic Michael Moore. In the end, I felt like I could have learned more if I hadn’t been so distracted by the film’s final notes.

I wouldn’t recommend rushing out to the theater to catch this documentary, but it is a definite must-rent. The subject may be grave, especially when shown through Guggenheim’s lens, but it is one that must be addressed.

Rating: 4/5

Review: CATFISH

The new documentary, Catfish, has caused a near uproar regarding its validity. Is it really a documentary or is it just masquerading as one? Is it really “the best Hitchcock film that Hitchcock never directed” or will it deliver a lackluster outcome? Before you get too tangled up in hesitation, let me ask you this: does the story’s authenticity really even matter if the subject still rings true?

Unknown filmmakers Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman center Catfish on Nev Schulman, a 24-year-old photographer living in New York City, and his blossoming internet friendship with a family from Michigan. The correspondence begins when Abby, an eight-year-old artist, sends Nev a package containing an oil painting of hers based on a recently published photo of his. Nev gets in touch with Abby’s mother, Angela, on Facebook and starts to learn about their family, all the while sending his pictures to Abby for her to paint for him. He becomes friends with Abby’s father and brother as well and even strikes up a courtship with her older sister, Megan. However, Nev discovers inconsistencies in some of the family members’ stories and decides to step back from the situation and do some investigating, which ultimately leads him to Michigan and forces him to face the truth.

The controversy surrounding this film’s authenticity proves to be completely irrelevant because, whether or not it is actually a documentary,Catfish speaks volumes about how we as a culture so often blur the line between internet and reality. In a way, Nev takes a risk by placing himself in the in-between for the sake of mass revelation. The sole purpose of this film is to get its audience to ask questions and seek out answers, which I believe it does masterfully. Everything else that I love about the film-from its use of Google Maps as an aesthetic touch to its concentration on even characters’ most minor reactions-is merely a bonus.

Though I think Catfish has a shot at holding quite a bit of cultural value, if only temporarily, it will no doubt leave some viewers feeling less than satisfied. The marketing campaign behind this film indicates that it will be this year’s Paranormal Activity, however, it does not deliver any horrific scares and the “Hitchcockian twist” it boasts is only a plot development. Unfortunately, the film’s misleading insinuations will ultimately overshadow its true nature and keep it from resonating with disappointed moviegoers.

If you are interested in films that have something valuable to say, I highly recommend Catfish. It may not completely embody the tone it appears to upon first glance, but it still haunts, if only in the unusual sense of the term.

Rating: 4/5

Review: CROPSEY

Being a fan of both documentaries and horror films, I was eager to see what Cropsey had to offer. With a poster tagline that reads “the truth is terrifying” and a trailer that speaks of an urban legend come to life, it promised to be raw, haunting, and right up my alley. However, I left the theater feeling like the truth is bland rather than terrifying.

Cropsey, written and directed by Barbara Brancaccio and Joshua Zeman, focuses on a popular urban legend in their hometown of Staten Island, NY. Cropsey was believed to be an escaped mental patient who roamed the tunnel systems and forests of the island at night, kidnapping children and murdering them with a number of rumored weapons. The story circulated as a way to keep the youth out of the abandoned Willowbrook Mental Institution, but when children actually started disappearing, the line between legend and fact became blurred. The story itself has the potential to be interesting. The suspected killer, Andre Rand, is a fascinating character and the profiles of the victims-who were all disabled in some capacity-and the effects of their disappearances on the community are gripping. It’s a shame the filmmakers didn’t choose to hone in on what makes this case worth learning about.

Ultimately, Cropsey came off as being an extended Friday night special suited for MSNBC. Brancaccio and Zeman spent far too much time and energy on Rand’s second trial for a child’s murder that had finally turned up enough evidence to possibly have him convicted. The only elements that actually made this film a documentary rather than a television special were the overbearing soundtrack and poorly executed jump-scare attempts that occurred when the filmmakers roamed the dark, empty Willowbrook. If Cropsey had been more of a psychological profile on Andre Rand or paid more attention to the efforts of the Staten Island citizens still searching for the missing children’s bodies, it would have been far more compelling and coherent.

Unfortunately, this documentary failed to do the story of Cropsey justice. Wait until it actually does appear on MSNBC and hope that it’s given the feature film treatment with a stronger focus and more creative forces behind it.

Rating: 2.5/5