Movie Defense Force: Paranormal Activity
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I like the first PA quite a bit. It's well paced and does a good job of lulling you into a nice sense of rhythm (plot during the day, spooky stuff at night) and then turning that on it's head towards the end for a good climax (spooky stuff any time.)
While I think the movie would be a billion times better if trimmed 3 seconds off the end, I still enjoy it a lot.
Where I have problems is with PA as a franchise. Found footage movies are great but they rely on a certain type of world building to really succeed. Blair Witch sells itself as an attempt to make a student film documentary, Cloverfield pulls double duty by presenting itself as footage of some guy documenting a monster attack on New York and later recovered by the military and leaked to the public.
Where the PA series fails at this is by insisting on attempting a cohesive metaplot. After 4 movies where the writers have had to contrive reasons why this footage exists it starts to strain my already thinly suspended disbelief. Is this family just deeply voyeuristic? Does the demon just really like being on camera? Where does this footage come from? Who found it? Who edited it together?
I can't help but think that if they wanted to make a series out of PA it would have been better served as an anthology with each film presenting itself as new documented evidence of various and sundry hauntings, cults and demon possessions. It would have been harder to weave together a metaplot tying all of the films together without having to be so blunt and clumsy but it would have kept the concept in tact.
While I think the movie would be a billion times better if trimmed 3 seconds off the end, I still enjoy it a lot.
Where I have problems is with PA as a franchise. Found footage movies are great but they rely on a certain type of world building to really succeed. Blair Witch sells itself as an attempt to make a student film documentary, Cloverfield pulls double duty by presenting itself as footage of some guy documenting a monster attack on New York and later recovered by the military and leaked to the public.
Where the PA series fails at this is by insisting on attempting a cohesive metaplot. After 4 movies where the writers have had to contrive reasons why this footage exists it starts to strain my already thinly suspended disbelief. Is this family just deeply voyeuristic? Does the demon just really like being on camera? Where does this footage come from? Who found it? Who edited it together?
I can't help but think that if they wanted to make a series out of PA it would have been better served as an anthology with each film presenting itself as new documented evidence of various and sundry hauntings, cults and demon possessions. It would have been harder to weave together a metaplot tying all of the films together without having to be so blunt and clumsy but it would have kept the concept in tact.
Sorry Jim, you're missing the mark here. Jump scares are by definition cheap. They are called jump scares BECAUSE its usually just some crap jumping out at you. No atmosphere or build-up.
Also. Ghosts are dumb. If you want real horror, you need a human antagonist.
Also. Ghosts are dumb. If you want real horror, you need a human antagonist.
here's my problem with jump scares: there's nothing to be afraid of. it's like getting a medical shot. once you get over the initial uncomfortableness of someone forcing a hard, metal needle through your skin, you think, "ah. that wasn't so bad, actually." in the same fashion, once the initial jump scare is over, it's like, "well now that that's out of the way. . ." jump scares don't make me check my closet or night or close my window blinds without looking out the window in case there is a bogey man. jump scares can't make a long, dark, seemingly empty hallway scary. jump scares are an obstacle, not fear. it's an involuntary reaction that will work to some degree even if it hasn't been set up correctly on anyone who doesn't know the exact moment it's set to occur. it's not even a cheap thrill, it's just annoying, and it only ever works the one time.
There was this fairy tale about a king who walked around naked but everyone said he wore the most excellent clothes because they were sheep or something like that.tiredinnuendo said:
I feel it's the same case with this movie. Everyone's praising it for one reason or another but when you take away all the hype and clever marketing, there's really nothing there.
I liked the first movie, honestly. The leads were believable to a certain extent (Micah stretched the "I can't believe this shit!" angle a little too far) and I always thought that horror movies are better served by a plot that doesn't explain everything away.
I remember walking away from the theater and thinking that Katie was dead. That was that, she didn't survive her conflict against some sort of familial entity, and I didn't mind. I don't need my horror movies to have stellar endings.
Then someone went and assumed the movie was sequel material. At least it didn't happen as a sort of drop-kick into complete mediocrity like in Blair Witch 2's case, but rather as a steady descent into clinically observable brain death. The third movie could've been two hours of the typical flatline's tone that I would've had the same general lack of thrills or interest.
I remember walking away from the theater and thinking that Katie was dead. That was that, she didn't survive her conflict against some sort of familial entity, and I didn't mind. I don't need my horror movies to have stellar endings.
Then someone went and assumed the movie was sequel material. At least it didn't happen as a sort of drop-kick into complete mediocrity like in Blair Witch 2's case, but rather as a steady descent into clinically observable brain death. The third movie could've been two hours of the typical flatline's tone that I would've had the same general lack of thrills or interest.
I loved the first paranormal activity, and didn't mind the others. Okay I thought 2nd was pointless but at least the prequel shed some light on the mythos and everything. The only criticism I have for these movies is that I find them a bit misandry (anti men) mostly the male characters die and they are all very stupid.
Other then that I thought these movies did a very good job.
Other then that I thought these movies did a very good job.
Eh, they explained that they knew it was haunting her, not the house, so it would just follow. I had to chuckle at that though. It just seemed like one of those things that everybody reading the script pre-production asked until the writer finally just said enough, and put in this quick explanation to shut everyone up.Alar said:
For me, I just barely watched all four of these the last two weeks through getting the DVD's from Netflix. Hadn't seen them before. I was surprised how little I was affected by the first one. It didn't scare me all that much at all. Personally, I thought the second one was much scarier. Throw a toddler into the mix and things just get creepier.
3rd and 4th ones however...bleh. As mentioned above, tried to explain too much and the demon itself seemed to be inconsistent with itself from the first and second one....if a never seen demon can really be inconsistent.
Finally, the most annoying thing from the movies (especially the first one), why did the stupid demon need to turn on the light to walk down the hall? The thing fed on fear, so slamming doors and crashing furniture were good for that, but flicking on the light when walking down the hall when everybody is sleeping? What kind of creature of the night is this?!
Quarantine was completely ruined for me by watching the trailers. Some producers decided to put the ending in the trailer, along with too many of the scary scenes. Each time any tension would start to build I'd recognized something from the trailer and it would deflate the scene for me. Might have to give it a second chance some day.tangoprime said:The hidden footage / low budget handheld ones are my kind of bag tooJimothy Sterling said:
What did you think of Quarantine? That would could probably use a Movie Defense Force mobilization.
I hate when that happens! I had never watched trailers for it, only saw ads on website banners and whatnot that showed a very scared looking Debra from Dexter, lol. Ended up watching it ~1:00AM at a friend's house when we were browsing their DVDs looking for something to do.AdagioBoognish said:Quarantine was completely ruined for me by watching the trailers. Some producers decided to put the ending in the trailer, along with too many of the scary scenes. Each time any tension would start to build I'd recognized something from the trailer and it would deflate the scene for me. Might have to give it a second chance some day.tangoprime said:The hidden footage / low budget handheld ones are my kind of bag tooJimothy Sterling said:
What did you think of Quarantine? That would could probably use a Movie Defense Force mobilization.
The problem with the PA movies isn't the first one, they made it for 15 bucks or what ever and it got picked up by a studio. I can forgive the first PA for it's lack of creativity and being forgettable.
It's all the PA's after it that are the problem, they're purposely formulaic manipulative and uncreative just so the profit to budget ratio is ridiculously off kilter. There is nothing in those movies that is done because some one gives a crap about what they are doing.
They're movies that pander to the numb brains.
It's all the PA's after it that are the problem, they're purposely formulaic manipulative and uncreative just so the profit to budget ratio is ridiculously off kilter. There is nothing in those movies that is done because some one gives a crap about what they are doing.
They're movies that pander to the numb brains.