Paranormal Activity
Mikey 8 comments
Directed by Oren Peli, Paranormal Activity is an unimaginatively titled film about a young suburban couple who are routinely disturbed during sleeping hours by an unseen presence in their home.
If you've seen the Blair Witch Project then you can get an idea of the way in which this film is shot - entirely at the hands of our protagonists Micah and Katie with nausea inducing handy cam. But unlike the Blair Witch Project this movie isn't being pimped as the real life documented last moments of the people involved.
For the most part it works well, except that Peli could really learn a thing or two about pacing, as this will test your patience with really only about 15 minutes of the film having anything worth watching. The rest is just Micah and Katie talking about the presence that 'may or may not be demonic', with some small parts about Katie's childhood revealed.
In an effort to see what's happening during the night, Micah sets up a camera in the bedroom to film them sleeping. Each night the activity gets more intense and frightening, and Micah grabs the camera at every opportunity, except unexplainably for the one that counts during the final and most interesting 10 minutes.
At the beginning some of the events are subtle enough that they could have easily been passed of as having really happened, even if they could have been explained with some good science. Peli probably realised this, so things get turned up a notch to the point where it is a little ridiculous. This is most notable during the ouija board scene.
To his credit, Peli has put together a passable effort that by rights should never have worked again after the Blair Witch Project (a film he didn't make) did it so well before. Having a solid score on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't hurt the credibility factor either, and there are a lot worse movies out there believe me.
My only advice is to not watch it at home, alone, in the dark when it's released on DVD/Bluray. Actually, thinking about it again, as the intention is to scare you those are probably the best conditions to watch this movie - without the comfort of hundreds of people surrounding you in the cinema.
TVBIZ(BOB)
Tuesday 1st December 2009 | 08:24 AMIf I want to watch a DVC quality movie then I will put on one that I have taken of the family.
If I am paying $15 for one ticket to see a movie shot for the big screen then please give me the quality that I want to see at the cinema. Shaky cam, POV through a home video camera is just not worth the outlay. I have noticed that 3/4 of the movies these days shouldnt even be released in the cinemas. What ever happened to great cinematography? A movie that leaves you breathless without all the special effects and movie hype, a movie that has some thought and direction behind it and yes some colour too.
I'm sick of leaving the cinema with a sick bag and eye strain created by wonky cams and grainy film..............
Papa
Tuesday 1st December 2009 | 10:03 AM...in response to this comment by andrew. Seriously? Way to show everyone the layout of your house including every criminal that saw the movie!
Mikey
Tuesday 1st December 2009 | 08:18 PM...in response to this comment by andrew. That's an impressive profit margin. Enough to buy a new house. I read today he's planning a sequel.
andrew
Saturday 5th December 2009 | 07:52 PMand i guess the sequel called Paranormal Activity 2
Joe Marco
Monday 7th December 2009 | 03:46 AMI saw the film and am still wondering how it cost him 15 grand to film a 'home' movie in his house?! ($5000 was spent on food, camera and gas costs for the actors and $10,000 was the fee for the film to fall into Spielberg's hand.)
The dude killed it, from a financial stand point. They had a great marketing scheme and slowly but surely sucked everyone in, including myself.
Homey is laughing all the way to the bank. This is clearly a case of being at the right place at the right time....now if only I could find 10 grand...
Bustor
Tuesday 8th December 2009 | 09:22 PMNot all great productions are moneyeaters. This is a wonderful example of a cost effective profitable production.
And what's more people pay to get scared and till the time this goes on why spend millions creating sets for Sci-Fi stuff?
TVBIZ(BOB)
Monday 14th December 2009 | 08:28 AMI went and saw this film last week. As I said in my previous comment a waste of my money.
The two so called actors were so annoying.
The guy was a nutter and pervert. All he really wanted was to video them having sex.
The girl was also a nutter for putting up with the guy and I cheered when she did her thing in the end.
I did not once get scared so the promotions were better then the actual home movie.
PLEASE HOLLYWOOD DON"T RELEASE FILMS USING THIS SHOOTING FORMAT!
This is the third film I know using this style and I hope the last.
andrew
Monday 30th November 2009 | 03:19 PMcost him $15,000 to make and has taken $100 million so far. he also filmed it in his own house...