Paranormal Activity

[p1zl3]

I'ma have to say Paranormal Activity was a decent little flick!
I had a band of noisy teenagers sitting right behind me and they were unable to ruin the film, which says a lot. The scares were a little formulaic, but they broke up the monotony of "daytime, safe; nighttime, scary" by alluding to a progressively more agitated entity spilling his malice into the day. I could have done with a different ending, but even that wasn't able to sully the films overall documentary-esque creepy feel....

...8/10. Twas worth the $5 matinée fee.

[massacre man]

Most disappointed I've ever been with a movie, ever. I wasn't scared or creeped out for a single frame.

[DeluzioNFX]

**SOME SPOILERS**

@ Massacre man


Glad to see i am not the only one who thought this was a dissapointment..


After all the reviews i read.. "terrifying" "scariest movie ever"...

I mean what was terrifying in that?

Weird sounds..?
Slamming doors?

Watching 2 people sleep?




I spent the whole movie waiting anxiously for something scary to happen, specially at night when i was waiting for something to happen in the hallway.. other then lights going on and off and seeing shadows..

When ever something "paranormal" is about to happen the damn camera is setup so you know sometihng is coming.. killing the suspense


Whoever voted this more then a 5/10 , Please send me some of what you're smoking.

[_____V_____]

With Lionsgate's Saw VI defeated by Paramount's Paranormal Activity at the U.S. box office this weekend, horror fans might want to celebrate the victory of the small independent against an established series.

But as it turns out, it may well be that an old Halloween franchise has simply been dethroned by a new one.

Filmed in 2007, Oren Peli's Paranormal Activity was bought by Paramount, whose initial intention was to remake it. Eventually, following positive test screenings, the studio decided to give Peli's $15,000 feature a small theatrical opening. Originally out on 12 screens, Paranormal Activity has progressively grown and has now beaten Halloween staple Saw VI at the box office, grossing $22m against a mere $14.8m.

To most observers, this is clearly a sign that U.S. audiences have voted with their feet and preferred to give their 10 bucks to an original product, rather than to the sixth instalment in a tired franchise.

Whatever you may think of the film - whether it scared you or not - Paranormal Activity was undeniably inventive and fresh. Indeed every aspiring filmmaker - and quite a few established ones - now wish they'd come up with the idea. You would think such success would send distributors a signal that viewers want to see original productions.

But now comes the news that a sequel is envisaged.

Ironically, the Saw series started out the same way. A clever, original, low-budget film created by two newcomers, James Wan and Leigh Whannell, and with no stars in its cast, Saw defied all expectations when it made a killing at the worldwide box office on Halloween 2004. Launching the torture porn sub-genre, it became a true phenomenon.

Quickly however, what had once been the underdog turned into a pure marketing product, following a tried and tested formula. Cleverly sold as a new Halloween tradition, the Saw series became the most reliable money-maker of the horror season.

Will Paranormal Activity follow the same path and replace it as the new low-budget franchise to beat? Or will it go the way of another low-budget found-footage winner - 1999's Blair Witch Project - whose follow-up Book of Shadows crashed and burned the following year?

Most of all, is this what audiences truly want? On the one hand, fans did flock to every Saw sequel for four years, and even though the fifth one is still profitable, given how low production costs were kept. On the other hand, wouldn't they show the same interest in good original features, were they given the same kind of clever marketing the Saw films benefited from?

In the end, the only thing that matters to investors is the money a product generates, and as long as we pay to watch endless sequels, all we deserve is to see more get made.

[p1zl3]

DeluzioNFX said:
Whoever voted this more then a 5/10 , Please send me some of what you're smoking.

I would, but I don't think sending BC-bud through the post is such a good idea... ;)

The movie was made for a cool $15k and what it did (for the money spent), it did well. I'm sick to death of the crap horror that has been plopping outta Hollywood for the past decade (with budgets of millions of dollars); this film, Paranormal Activity, was a breath of fresh air and at a fraction of the cost.
As for the sequences being in fast-forward, then slowing to show the paranormal events; what you're seeing is the edited video file found by the police which was created by it's owner, Micah.

My beef is as follows: don't these people work? I kept thinking "does the entity bother Katie in the job place... spill her coffee over... staple files shut... etc.?"
I also was bothered by the end. I mean really!?!? It was a lame scare tactic... nothing more.

But all things considered... a great flick made extraordinary by it's frugal conception.

[Posher778]

I'm getting tired of the handheld thing as well. I've said it before but I think it still remains true. Cloverfield has won in the genre of handheld camera films, closely followed by [REC].

[chaibill]

I'm not going to agree with every one and say the the hand held cam is over used because you think you are saying something that no one else has thought of. And because I don't believe it is over used.

How many handy cam movies can you think of? How many of those suck? Diary of the dead was good. [rec] was good it remake Quarantine was good, Cloverfield was good. Blair witch is said to be good, Are there any of the "Over used technique movies" that are unwatchable?
If you want to sound like you are this film expert say you are tired of movies with asshole producers butchering a script to "sell" a movie. You know I wasted $1.09 to see Army of the Dead, rented from a redbox dvd rental machine. That is what I am tired of that movie was a cliche' the entire movie it sucked.
Paranormal activity was great it totally fucked hollywood and they still wanted to make it over into a full production and it would have flopped. Can you imagine if it was made into a huge film with Kevin Pollack running around trying to have chemistry with some caught in the head lights like Maggie Gyllenhaal. Or two idiots from Friday the 13th 2009 one showing off their new tits the other his new hair. Just an example I don't know who they would have cast in the flop.

You guys if you didn't like it fine but you should be glad and thankful it wasn't ruined by hollywood. And hope that hollywood would release more films weather indie or foreign instead of remaking them. But the question is with word of mouth (i haven"t seen a TV or internet ad in weeks but i live in NY so they might figure on us seeing theater posters and such) a movie has been a success it was made for $15,000 I think they sold it to paramount for $250,000 so Paramount is getting their cut of all those millions....I hope everyone involved with the making of the film gets something out of that. Not sure how that works after you sell to a studio...
I will say that paranormal activity will be declared the biggest horror movie of 2009 by what ever media company declares those things.
And Paramount wants to make a sequel with will suck because it will go so far from the original.

When i watched it i really got into the movie it just seemed real.. the chick had arm fat where do you see that in high budget movies? They didn't over act. You could imagine it happening to you in your own house. And it wasn't like that Ghost Hunters crap show where they scream at nothing and bump into the camera person. Don't think i have gotten through an entire episode of that.

Just imagine if you had seven free days....$15,000.... four actors... and an empty house.
What would you make? Would the world watch? Would hollywood scratch their heads?

[massacre man]

Originally Posted by chaibill

You guys if you didn't like it fine but you should be glad and thankful it wasn't ruined by hollywood.

That ending was definitely Hollywood and, in context, one of the absolute dumbest things I've ever seen on film. They spend the whole movie trying to make it realistic and not like every other horror movie then wreck EVERYTHING with that ending.

[p1zl3]

...one of the absolute dumbest things I've ever seen on film.

You need to get out more. If that's the "absolute dumbest" thing you've ever seen on film, then you're lucky. There's some real crap floating around out there (some of which gets advertised on this site) and viewing even 0.01% of horror movies in mainstream production should put Paranormal Activity way outta your "dumbest thing ever seen on film list".... that's for damn sure.

try watching anything by Lars Von Trier... :p (had to get that jab in there)

PS: When are you gonna break that 10k posting mark, you lazy bastard.;)

[massacre man]

Originally Posted by p1zl3

You need to get out more. If that's the "absolute dumbest" thing you've ever seen on film, then you're lucky. There's some real crap floating around out there (some of which gets advertised on this site) and viewing even 0.01% of horror movies in mainstream production should put Paranormal Activity way outta your "dumbest thing ever seen on film list".... that's for damn sure.

I said in the context of the seemingly realistic vibe the movie was trying to keep. It would be like if Michael Myers sprouted wings and flew back up to the balcony after Loomis shot him or if the truck Sally rode away in at the end of Texas Chain Saw Massacre turned around and brought her back and the driver just looked back and laughed like a billbilly at her. I could see dumb stuff in other movies coming and forgive it more easily because the accompanying scenes were also extremely dumb.