Utopia Talk / Movie Talk / 'Paranormal Activity'

Liberal Member	Tue Oct 06 23:25:42 'Scariest Movie Of the Decade' There is a trailer at the site. Is 'Paranormal Activity' the Next 'Blair Witch Project'? * September 25, 2009 * By: Kevin Polowy The phenomenon that was 'The Blair Witch Project' is a rarity Hollywood has been dying to replicate since the Little Indie That Could's 1999 release, when it scared up a staggering $140 million -- from a budget of $60,000. Well, the next 'Blair Witch' may have arrived. (Let's all just pretend the abominable 'Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2' never existed.) The suddenly super-buzzed-about horror flick 'Paranormal Activity' was made for a mere $11,000 over the course of seven days -- and is now being called "the scariest movie of the decade." The film follows a young couple (Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat) who, convinced they're being haunted by spirits, set up a video camera to monitor their bedroom over the course of 20 nights. After sinking into my seat for the better part of its 99 minute-runtime at a midnight screening earlier this morning, I'm inclined to agree. No other film this millennium has proved so shockingly chilling ('The Descent' comes closest) -- or packed the kind of lingering effects to leave you shaken and utterly terrified of your own home. Adam Goodman, president of production at Paramount -- who scooped the film up after its 2008 debut at the Slamdance Film Festival -- stopped by last night's screening, the first in New York, to introduce it. Goodman recalled how 35 people had walked out of an early test screening; exit interviews with those folks revealed it wasn't because they weren't enjoying the film. It was because they were too scared. Goodman also admitted that DreamWorks, formerly a leg of Paramount co-headed by Steven Spielberg, had swooped in and pocketed 'Paranormal Activity' with every intention of leaving it on the shelf and remaking it with a big budget and marquee stars. Then they wised up. So now here we have an ultra-low budget horror film with incredible buzz positioned to be a sleeper hit. Sounds a little bit like the summer of '99, no? The similarities to 'Blair Witch' don't stop there. The film plays out entirely through shaky cam, features unknown actors in authentic performances, oftentimes relies on cerebral distress and off-camera jolts to scare, and slowly builds up to a shocking climax. What the minds behind 'Paranormal' are doing differently is all in the marketing. They're not attempting to convince us this is a true story, a strategy that resulted in big bucks for 'Blair Witch' but a subsequent backlash from angry moviegoers who complained they were duped (but really people, you thought that was real?). It's almost unheard of for a major studio to acquire such a tiny film. But Paramount is stayed true to the movie's grassroots nature by opening the film first in only 10 (somewhat random) markets, not including major cities like New York and L.A., then calling on audiences to demand it. It's a bold strategy for a major distributor. Will it repeat the success of 'Blair Witch'? It's too early to tell, but the cards are falling into place -- last night in L.A., for example, 4,500 people lined up to try to get into a special screening. And 'Paranormal Activity' beats out 'Blair Witch' in one vital field: It's scarier. While 'Blair Witch' may have scared people away from the woods for a few years (like 'Jaws' did the water two decades earlier), who's going to stay away from their own bedroom? Consider yourselves warned. UPDATE (10/6): Currently playing on only 33 screens across the country, the film will open in 10 more markets this weekend -- Boston, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Cleveland, El Paso, Hampton Roads metro area, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Portland, Salt Lake City, and Toronto. Meanwhile, Paramount remains committed to their promise to open the film in every market once they reach 1 million "demands" (they're currently just shy of 400,000). http://ins...vity-movie-next-blair-witch%2F
nhill Member	Wed Oct 07 02:25:57 Looks pretty fucking gay to me.
Liberal Member	Wed Oct 07 03:52:01 Everything looks gay to you. There must be a reason for that.
nhill Member	Wed Oct 07 04:22:27 Probably because everywhere I look I see you or one of your many multis.
Liberal Member	Wed Oct 07 04:30:40 More likely you are just tuned into that lifestyle. Don't be ashamed, it isn't that much of a stigma in today's culture.
nhill Member	Wed Oct 07 05:18:06 You know I'm gay for you, old chap. Let's not mince words here.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Oct 22 03:14:06 Very good movie! The more I think about it the more I think that I like it, and the more I'm thinking of seeing it again. I hadn't read the above description of it until now, but "lingering effects" is right.. It really sets the stage and leaves the kind of sleepy unknowns that can affect people; little considerations that don't quite have an impact until you're in the dark with your own thoughts ;p As far as the way it was filmed -- surprisingly effective. I have to say that at no time during the film was I shocked; there weren't any moments where I jumped back in my seat like a tween, but I felt *ready* to. A lot of times it corners the imagination into thinking that if "this" happens I may jump, but just like being scared in one's own bed, the actual shock is much more illusory -- if it comes at all -- the precedent is much more compelling // the what *if*. For most of the movie I was looking sharply at different parts of the screen to see if I could spot anything -- very intriguing :) << spoilers slip in from here >> I can't complain too much about the acting. Katie Featherston had a few moments where it was apparent that she was trying to be creepy but clearly wasn't thinking of the right thing (smiling moments at the end), but the dialogue and script were charged enough that it was possible to forgive some of their reactions. Like, since it was filmed from the perspective of a character holding a camera or placing it on a tripod or the like, you can get the sense that they are camera-aware -- something annoying to see in a normal movie, but entirely understandable here. And so, as it happens, the "Psychic" character (an unknown; Mark Fredrichs) could be considered a bad actor in this case because he wasn't camera-aware *enough*.. he seemed to accept its presence much too quickly. In his second appearance of the movie I don't think he even looked at it, though I'd have to double check that. So in the movie's parameters, I would say that acting can be somewhat ruled out. These people might not survive in a major motion picture, but they did well enough. The camerawork was bearable, which is a big step for the "personal camera"/"youtube" genre (if that's a genre). There was only one time in the movie that I felt limited by the camera positioning, (bed drag moment) but otherwise it was held steady and the aspect ratio didn't make it feel like a blurry tunnel (I hate you Cloverfield). I thought the pacing was well done. It moved forward based on the idea of 'relevance in video capture,' so the screen clock would whiz by when nothing was going to happen, but it would suddenly slow as a source of tension in foreshadowing. This may have been why it wasn't "jump out scary" and was instead the above said "cerebral" (in my case at least). There were more "what's going to happen?" moments than in the usual horror movies, which normally make it obvious what's next because the camera has made a clear panning choice to omit the movements of a masked actor off screen or the path of a bus (seriously J.J. Abrams, STOP) :p In this, by having a camera sitting on a tripod simply observing, the viewer isn't given a bad director's redundant parlor tricks but can watch an unhindered action. I think that only one "pan around" scare was employed.. As for critiques and reasons why I can't totally vouch for this movie, the main one, sadly, is the cultural one. Because they're doing the "hype" thing and comparing it to Blair Witch (even right now at the bottom of the screen there's an add that says "Paranormal Activity... Is It Real?"), a lot of people are going to automatically hate it and group all those that liked it into the scare-chaser category (kids that like to shriek at movies). The fallout might not be too bad, but I never saw "The Blair Witch Project" for those reasons.. I may rent it someday. Hype aside, my complaint once it was over is that they hadn't taken advantage of a vulnerable mental state; they had alluded to a great number of disturbing qualities and conditions, but may not have capitalized as they could have. The easily scared may not have this problem, but I remained in a state of "this is creepy.." without the shock of a solid event. In the end it may well have terrified me if Micah Sloat had crawled back into the bedroom with a slash under his left eye, with Featherston following *slowly* behind with some kind of distorted face, but instead there was some kind of cheap "throw at the camera" effect, Featherston's silly smile, and a CGI demon effect.. it was purely for the audience and I wondered if I was supposed to have been wearing 3D glasses. Credit is still due in this respect, because not having solid moments also leaves the movie in the imagination, which has become something of a lost art. Other things... ~ I liked that there were no beginning or end credits.. it's the little things really :) ~ It was good that they didn't exploit the cultural failure of video sex.. the male character kept asking, but luckily was turned down. That would have made the movie very cheap. ~ It was nice that they were skeptics themselves to a point; they weren't hearing boards creaking and running out of the house -- so when her keys were on the floor instead of the counter, it was discredited to some degree; when the psychic was first speaking to them he mentioned that people may just overplay house noises; and the male character even mentioned how silly it was for a demon to communicate to them by moving a door. If the voices of characters address audience concerns, then they did well not to speak only to those who would only want to jump on board for scares. Anyways, worth seeing, and I may have to look at lolcats before bed so that I can sleep tonight .. well.. I'd do that any night ;p
nhill Member	Thu Oct 22 16:56:15 your posts are long and I don't think i've read a single one
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Oct 22 18:26:35 That's why I put catch phrases -- all you had to read was "Very good movie!" ;p
The Powers That Be Member	Thu Oct 22 19:25:13 I love Cherub Cow <333333 Cherub Cow and I were the only two regulars keeping the original Swirve Movie Forums active. Her presence is always welcome!!!
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Oct 23 01:44:13 Yay! :D :p
Ubes JAC Wildebeest	Wed Nov 04 09:17:33 ttt for CC
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Nov 04 14:20:07 thx!
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: