You are not logged in. Please register or login.

misterID
 Rep: 476 

Re: Paranormal Activity

misterID wrote:

It's an indie film that all the critics are raving about. It's supposed to be one of the scariest films ever. Dreamworks just bought the rights to it and they're going to remake it, so they've been yanking down all trailers of the original all over the net. You can't see it anywhere.

...




Except here 16

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/31/dre … ns-remake/

Take a look before they get to it. It's at the bottom. It looks pretty good.

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: Paranormal Activity

James wrote:

Yeah, I remember this getting a huge online buzz 2 or 3 tears ago when a few people who got to watch it said it blew their minds. Then it just vanished without a trace, just like that other film at the time 'Trick R Treat'.

I find it funny that they're remaking a film that never saw more than an extremely limited release two years ago. Shows how the remake trend has overplayed its hand.

misterID
 Rep: 476 

Re: Paranormal Activity

misterID wrote:

Well, this one is different, remake-wise. It was a Slamdance entrant which is a competition for screenwriters and ultra small budget films. Most, if not all, the films shown there would never make it to theaters and it would be hard to even find a DVD distributor. It's really just another way to sell your script to studios/production companies.

The trailer looked good though.

misterID
 Rep: 476 

Re: Paranormal Activity

misterID wrote:

I guess they arent remaking it and are going ahead with the original, after all. This movie is getting a lot of hype.

Axlin16
 Rep: 768 

Re: Paranormal Activity

Axlin16 wrote:

Yeah, people are saying "scariest movie ever" and saying it makes "Blair Witch" look weak...

It's gotta suck.

misterID
 Rep: 476 

Re: Paranormal Activity

misterID wrote:

I'm trying not to listen to the hype, because I really want to enjoy this film. I fell for that shit when I saw Blair Witch.

FWIW people who are bashing BWP are really saying good things about this, except the last five seconds of the film... What the hell could happen in 5 seconds?

apex-twin
 Rep: 200 

Re: Paranormal Activity

apex-twin wrote:

Last 5 seconds... If memory serves me right, the Blair Witch was actually 'seen' in the last five seconds of BWP, after the ones still awake at the theatre (yours truly regrettably amongst them) were treated with the final batches of audience vengeance on behalf of those chronically disillusioned film school brats in the form of shakycam sickness (oh sorry, was supposed to read as 'sequence'). Of course, nothing to really write home about was to be seen. It's the same old Kuleshov theory; you cut from a plainlooking man into a plate - he's hungry. Same shot, cut into dead elderly woman - he's now grieving for his late mother. And so forth. Unfortunately, when BWP's sheer premise defies credibility, at least for someone grown up in the woods, seeing something remotely resembling a figure in the last five seconds hardly counts as a pay-off.

The problem with making proper 'paranormal' films is well demonstrated in the original Amityville Horror. While reasonably faithful to the original novel, as a cinematic story it falls flat, to be honest. You have people shuffling around and some interesting things going on, but you're largely looking at the head of the family coming into terms with the size of his mortgage. Films like The Entity and The Legend of Hell House veered into a more poltergeistian territory in trying to get the insivible creatures actually interact through more visible means.

Then again, how do you visualize such subtle elements as cold spots or odors without having the people on screen make a ridiculously big deal out of them every single time? That's why we're sort of stuck with the usual steering wheels getting stuck, doors opening with no-one there and the assorted amusements of mirrors.

It's a reasonably good idea and certainly worth exploring, but I wouldn't buy into the hype we've all heard before anyway.

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: Paranormal Activity

James wrote:

I'm sick of the hype of this film. It's everywhere. You literally cannot escape this here. I'm actually shocked it hasn't broken some box office record. I think a LOT of people just downloaded the DVD screener out of curiosity, which is what I'm doing tonight.

You can take a journey through Pirate Bay. According to those who have ventured through this film's waters, the forecast is severe hype with a slight chance of blue balls....

mister ID...... Spielberg wanted a nice and cozy ending, so the original ending was changed. This is what happens when "independent" horror gets swallowed up and sold to the masses. You get tons of fabricated hype with little substance. Main reason I've decided to five finger discount it instead of seeing it in theaters.

-Jack-
 Rep: 40 

Re: Paranormal Activity

-Jack- wrote:

I saw a downloaded version also tongue.

Had a horrible alternative ending though. Really sucked.

Overall I thought the movie was whatever. hmm

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: Paranormal Activity

James wrote:

Terrible film. One of the worst this decade, and only z movie shit like Motor Home Massacre could be considered worse.

This is the Blair Witch phenomenon a trillionfold. This film really shows how the internet now plays a major role in a film's buzz, and the trickle down effect works perfectly in our current culture. My "trust" in reviews at horror sites is now at an all time low and will probably never recover. The major horror sites have been bought and paid for, and if you never believed that in previous years, go read all their reviews and then go watch this.

There's rumors that at theaters in major cities, there are "plants" in the audience who scream as loudly as they can during certain segments of the movies. Thought the rumor was funny when I first heard it, but I now believe it 1000000000% after actually viewing the film.

It just isn't scary. Period. Apparently those of us who aren't scared by this only like to be force fed remakes and be told what scares us. Yeah....sure. 14

This doesn't even work psychologically, simply because there's no payoff. It's being marketed as a scary movie, so where are the scares? Since when is a door moving three inches by itself or a woman staring at her hubby on the bed considered scary? Take into consideration that people have actually witnessed moviegoers screaming in theaters during these two scenes. There's no way in hell that they are genuine screams.

My fellow horror fans, we've been Punk'd. I would like to support this film as it is different to the remakes/sequels that Hollywood spews out continuously, but the manufactured hype and insult to my intelligence will prevent that from happening.

Also, no way in hell would one of the alternate endings have saved this.

I definitely give major kudos to writer/director Oren Peli. This guy whipped up a mediocre B movie and various media/online outlets sold his bag of shit as a pot of gold and it actually worked. Even more kudos to Dreamworks who created a flawless marketing campaign. They actually had dipshits believing this was an independent movie getting an extremely limited release and you had to beg your local theaters to show it. The cherry on top was Spielberg saying the film scared him so much he had to turn it off halfway through.

I despise the marketing as its all based on fake hype, but the strategy most definitely works and you gotta give credit where its due.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB