Rate That Movie!

[BanksIsDaFuture]

Geezer, I think you made up your mind on Paranormal Activity a long time ago. You were probably going to hate it no matter what.

If you hate simply because they didn't think of closing the door...well then, I don't know what to tell you. They both knew it wouldn't make a fraction of a difference, same thing with trying to get a ghost hunter (does anyone even think these things are real? Are they in the Yellow Pages or some shit?).

And the theatrical ending is at least 10x better than the cop one. That ending sucks whale penis.

[NSpan]

but at least the cop ending FINISHES the story (or what semblance of a story there was)... the theatrical version is like telling the first 2/3s of a ghost story around a campfire and then just ending it by saying "BOO!"

also, let's keep in mind that those who saw the movie in a crowded theater had a VERY different experience than someone who watched it on youtube with a laptop... sure, a movie should be judged on its own merit--not the particular context you happened to see it in........ but, then again, as No6 said: this genre of film has little to do with traditional cinematic story-telling.. i'd say it's almost like an experimental amusement park ride (and, just like a rollercoaster, half of the thrills are in experiencing it with a group)

[Donte77]

And the theatrical ending is at least 10x better than the cop one. That ending sucks whale penis.

I agree with this. The cop ending just didn't have the impact I think.

i'd say it's almost like an experimental amusement park ride (and, just like a rollercoaster, half of the thrills are in experiencing it with a group)

Agree with this also. I think it was the shared tension that made it even better. Hearing the other people gasp or whatever heightened the mood.

[numbersix]

Some criticise the cinema ending as it was devised by Spielberg in order to get a cheap shock, and also to leave the story open for a sequel, because Paramount own all the rights on the sequel (they didn't for this one, just US rights I believe).

You could argue that the original ending, while not as outright scary, is more in line with the nature of the entity. It isn't something that lives entirely in this world, it only seems to have a limited power. The cinema version suggests that it can just jump into someone, which I think is a leap beyond what the film was initially suggesting (and also begs the question as to why it didn't possess the woman earlier). The original ending keeps in line with the entity as a sort of manipulator, due to its limited power. The scene with the cops shows how it manipulates events in order to get what it wants. I'm not saying which ending is better (haven't seen the cinema one), I just think the differences are interesting.

And NSpan, you nailed it on the head by comparing it to an amusement park ride. That's a perfect comparison

[frendo]

Paranormal Activity 1/10

This is tied with Orphan for the worst movie of 09.

Agreed on both counts. Orphan was one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever seen.

[Geezer]

Geezer, I think you made up your mind on Paranormal Activity a long time ago. You were probably going to hate it no matter what.

If you hate simply because they didn't think of closing the door...well then, I don't know what to tell you. They both knew it wouldn't make a fraction of a difference, same thing with trying to get a ghost hunter (does anyone even think these things are real? Are they in the Yellow Pages or some shit?).

Thank you for totally oversimplifying my arguments simply because you do not agree with them. My problem is, when a film isn't trying to be "real," I can very easily suspend my disbelief. When a movie is specifically telling me that I am supposed to believe what I am seeing, they have to make it believable, and in that, I think the film failed. Not because it dealt with the paranormal, but because its characters were so moronic, that I can't see any conceivable way that a human being would respond to this situation in this way. Total loss of believability to me. They really wouldn't even mention that the fucking Ouiji board lit on fire when they were gone? Seriously?

I didn't make up my mind on PA a long time ago, I just actually watched a film that I didn't think would be good. Did I have a pre-conceived idea of what was awaiting me? Yes, I did. I have one for every movie that I see. The difference is, I usually want to see the movies that I watch, based on plot, trailers etc. This film I watched because it was available to me and I was curious. I didn't expect it to be good, even with all the good word of mouth. It was far worse than I ever even expected.

[Buscemi]

Keep in mind that this is coming from a guy who thinks Transformers is one of the five best movies ever.

[Geezer]

Top 15 anyway

Although I don't know what that has to do with this conversation

[BanksIsDaFuture]

From what I remember, they do mention the Ouiji board catching on fire. Micah plays it back for Katie, if I do remember correctly.

I do think you didn't like it because of a combo of what you said (your expectations going in, already skewed to not believe the hype) and Span (watching it on youtube or something doesn't really compare to watching it in a sold out theater). Then again, I saw it alone in a theater and it still freaked me out.

I still think the expectations plays a bigger part than you think. I know someone at work hadn't seen it, and went in it with a couple of friends looking to laugh at it, and lo and behold, they thought it was terrible and very unintentionally funny. Either way, I'm sorry you didn't like it, I thought it was a very powerful horror movie. First one I've ever seen that literally made sleep with the lights on after watching it. I think calling it "Blair Witch" in a house is a compliment, not a dismissal. As Blair Witch was pretty damn good. But then again, Scream scared the shit outta me when I was 12 so there's that...

I see what NSpan is saying about the cop ending staying in line with the rest of the movie, but I think it only possessed her because it was slowly getting stronger and stronger with the more stupid shit Micah did. You can witness it getting stronger: it first only touches objects, then it touches Katie dragging her and biting her, then it appears during the daytime, then Micah burns the cross (which is like the ultimate negative vibe to a demon I assume), thus it gets strong enough to possess Katie. That is what I took from it.

I would've liked to see the ending where she kills herself. Maybe with the demon leaving her body an instant before it makes her slit her throat right in front of the camera, and her saying "help me" or something right before she does it. Then maybe the cops come in and discover her body before the door slams or something and it ends. Just a thought...

[numbersix]

I think it would have been a bit more believable, if not scarier, if they decided to leave the house and stay in a hotel, and then the same things keep happening- that would prove that there was no escape. If I were Micah I'd do that regardless of the arguments.

[Geezer]

From what I remember, they do mention the Ouiji board catching on fire. Micah plays it back for Katie, if I do remember correctly.

Not that I remember. He shows the Ouiji board moving and the letters he thinks it goes to saying Diane, but then never actually mentions what happens after, which I certainly thought was the bigger issue.

I do think you didn't like it because of a combo of what you said (your expectations going in, already skewed to not believe the hype) and Span (watching it on youtube or something doesn't really compare to watching it in a sold out theater). Then again, I saw it alone in a theater and it still freaked me out.

I still think the expectations plays a bigger part than you think. I know someone at work hadn't seen it, and went in it with a couple of friends looking to laugh at it, and lo and behold, they thought it was terrible and very unintentionally funny. Either way, I'm sorry you didn't like it, I thought it was a very powerful horror movie. First one I've ever seen that literally made sleep with the lights on after watching it. I think calling it "Blair Witch" in a house is a compliment, not a dismissal. As Blair Witch was pretty damn good. But then again, Scream scared the shit outta me when I was 12 so there's that...

Its not necessarily that I was skewed to not believe the hype, its that I'm skewed to not like this type of movie, if you can even call it a movie. People like what they like. If a person finds a douchebag taunting a demon funny and stupid and unbelievable, like your friends and myself, of course we're not going to be tricked into being scared by the movie. Because that is all a horror movie is, a trick. You are never in any real danger, what you are seeing is not real, so the movie has to find a way to trick your mind into feeling a sense of danger. This certainly never happened for me here, which all goes back to my lack of care for the characters. Hell I don't remember the last time I've ever felt real, serious fear by a horror movie. To be honest, unlike most people I think jump scares are way more powerful than anything in this film. At least they do their job, to make me jump and get my adrenaline going, heart racing and excite me. This film couldn't do that for me. I was never on the edge of my seat. The acting and characters (particularly Micah of course) were so bad I couldn't think of these characters as real people, so where was I going to be afraid? If you thought the in between scenes built "suspense" good for you, but I'd suggest checking out a few Hitchcock movies to see how to build real tension from a master of cinema. I thought this was nothing more than a cheap gimmick meant to trick people into thinking that it was real, just like Blair Witch, and I thought Blair Witch Project was absolutely fucking abysmally terrible. It would make sense that you would like them both and consider that a compliment, but for someone who hated Blair Witch, its very easy to hate the same type of film in a different setting. If you don't like one, you won't like the other, and vice versa.

The issue of not seeing it in a dark, crowded, huge screen surround sound theater is a good point. I didn't watch it on youtube or anything, it was a DVD, I watched it on a good sized tv. But even still it probably would have been a different experience, you are right. I still don't think I would have liked it at all though, just might have been a little more scared at some parts. Oh, and I slept like a baby.

As far as the ending goes, I think it would have been better with what 6 said. If they tried to escape it and it followed them I would have been more satisfied with it. Seriously did anyone actually realize the minimum 6 year gap that this thing gave Katie each time she moved? It burned her house down when she was 13, she moved, and apparently this is the first time the demon has come back to torment her? Even if it comes back that's stil a good chunk of time when you can actually sleep, no?

[transformers2]

The Boondock Saints 2:All Saints Day 9/10

I finally saw this. It was quite good. Not as good as the orginal but it had the same tone and was almost as bad-ass. There is a very nice twist towards the end and a great/hillarious performance by Clifton Collins Jr. If you loved the first one you will love the second one.

[NSpan]

People like what they like.

If you thought the in between scenes built "suspense" good for you, but I'd suggest checking out a few Hitchcock movies to see how to build real tension from a master of cinema.

So, which is it? Do people "like what they like"? Or do people like crap--and you like good stuff?

That's quite the red herring you've come up with... In other words, anyone who thought PA achieved some degree of suspense obviously has no real understanding of cinema and should probably take Hitchcock 101 in order to grasp the "true" meaning of tension.

If you really think there's ANY sort of valid comparison between Hitchcock's finest and what we experienced with PA, you're loony. It's apples and oranges. That's like discussing an experimental techno-jazz band that you saw at a rave, and then hearing one guy say, "Anyone who enjoyed anything about that rave should check out a few Beatles albums to hear real melody from masters of popular music!"



Disclaimer: NSpan does not attend raves. Nor does he listen to "experimental techno-jazz." Nonetheless, the example works as satire of Geezer's logic.

[Geezer]

I don't quite get your arguement. People like what they like, its very true. And of course NSpan, I like what I like, and if I don't like it, to me it is crap, because what we are discussing here are opinions. Everyone has their own opinion. I'm simply sharing mine. There is no right or wrong answer, I was merely suggesting a contrast in styles, one which I find exceptionally effective, compared to the cheap thrills generated by "real" horror. Why is it "looney" to suggest that there is a formula for creating suspense, a formula that certain film makers understand while others simply do not? Are you suggesting that Paranormal Activity did not intend to be suspenseful? I don't think the Beatles set out to make techno rave music, which is why that doesn't make sense. If you want to argue that Paranormal Activity was not trying to be a suspenseful then your argument makes some more sense to me, but I don't think you were trying to say that.

[W]

Because "suspense" is an opinion as well?

Like "funny" is an opinion.