PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (DVD; Paramount)

Mike LoManaco

Studio Name: Paramount
MPAA Rating: R
Disc/Transfer Information: Widescreen Version Enhanced for 16X9 TVs
Tested Audio Track: English Dolby Digital 5.1
Director: Oren Peli
Starring Cast: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat


WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SLEEP?


SYNOPSIS/PLOT ANALYSIS:

Bear with me here, for a moment. I understand and fully acknowledge that the following statement is going to get me flamed, insulted and otherwise hung by my fingernails from the rafters in the tradition of upside down vampires in their sleep, but I must admit: I actually liked Paranormal Activity. When I first contributed my theatrical review of this film, the incoming verbal assaults in the subsequent thread read like an Osama Bin Laden pin-up announcement to the families of the victims of September 11, 2001…immediately, my opinion regarding the film and the fact that I felt it was one of the more genuinely frightening narratives to come down the Hollywood pike in quite some time were met with immediate lashes of “Ummm…I don’t think so, pal…” and “You’re completely wrong and off the rocker here…” when all I was doing in the review was stating opinion. No, almost everyone considered a lucrative part of what we call the human race did not like it. It was pissed on the moment it broke in private screening rooms. And it seems I, as one of the film’s reviewers in this particular moment in time, am returning for more of the same punishment I know will follow by posting the review of the film’s DVD release.

But I still hold to the opinion and sentiment that Paranormal Activity was more frightening and involving – and downright suspense-inspiring – than any of the so-called “horror” titles that we’ve been doomed to sit through in the past five or so years…this list can be quite copious when analyzed thoroughly, but let’s just say we’re talking about The Grudge, Shutter, Hide and Seek, Tamara and I can dare say The Ring or even Saw and its ridiculous sequels, but I know those possess – pun intended? – a fan following the likes of which would outnumber the internet community that already wants to burn me at the stake…so let’s just leave it at that. In finally getting around to owning a copy of Paranormal Activity on home video, and being assigned a review of it for a freelance assignment (a separately written editorial from this one), I was able to revisit the film since experiencing theatrically. What I came away with was a bit disappointing, in that I actually remembered it being more tactile in effect in the theaters as compared to in the home theater – but it was still plenty suspenseful.

The hoopla surrounding this film and whether or not it was really, truly based on an actual case is still something that inspires arguments and debates around breakfast tables; according to the end of the Theatrical Cut of the film, the characters were indeed real and an opening snippet suggests that the San Diego, California police were involved in obtaining material for the making of the picture. But did these things really happen? Was there a real “Katie” and “Micah”? If these were actual events, why is there an “alternate ending” on the home video versions? These same questions have plagued other mysterious cases which inspired motion pictures like Haunting in Connecticut, An American Haunting and even The Amityville Horror, although the Amityville case was heavily documented throughout decades and numerous books and films and other media. The premise is that a very young “engaged-to-be-engaged” couple move into a house which is experiencing disturbances notably when they fall asleep each night. The occurrences seem to be happening specifically to the girl, Katie, but eventually her boyfriend/fianc

Mike LoManaco

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY REVIEW CONTINUED...

VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC LOOK?

Paramount presents Paranormal Activity in a widescreen non-letterboxed transfer that looked surprisingly good for standard DVD, not to mention the format in which it was filmed – that is, from the perspective of a camcorder. Even with the shaky, unsteady clips from day to day and into the night, where the camera sat on a tripod, the video quality remained crisp, clean and without noise or grain; there were some brief moments that compression noise crept into a sequence or two, but is was extremely appropriate and didn’t last long.

I was truly impressed with the 1080p upconversion I experienced on my Oppo BDP-83 with this disc in the tray.

AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS: HOW DID THE DISC SOUND?

Okay. Here comes the dangerous part. I say “dangerous” because for anyone who has been following my RTi12/PSW350 thread I started last, you’ll know there was a bevy and onslaught of demands for me to rerun my receiver’s Audyssey system for getting my new RTi12’s to behave with the 350 sub. Suffice to say, I did indeed recalibrate to satisfy those demands, and the jury is still out on whether the EQ curve applied by Audyssey and the trim levels are accurate in the least – for now, let me say the system pegged the speaker sizes wrong, and the crossovers, so I needed to go in and change those parameters. On my particular receiver, I cannot review the EQ curves applied by Audyssey, but I can say the sound is significantly more “muffled” than when I was running it sans EQ up until now; I still need to experiment with the Audyssey application.

Given these conditions, the standard Dolby Digital 5.1 mix in English on this disc was curious; it seemed that 99.9 percent of the track came from the center channel, which is odd given the nature of the “haunting” premise. I detected absolutely no surround activity, although the brief bursts of a demonic thud or a door slamming were quite jarring. Again, I need to re-calibrate my system via SPL equipment to ensure Audyssey did the right thing here, but in total, I wasn’t that impressed with Paranormal Activity’s audio track.

The looming, ominous “grumbling” of low bass which announced the arrival of the entity each night in the bedroom had some satisfying hang and loom to it as it vibrated across my listening room – but I suspect this would be even more effective and aggressive given a larger and better sub. Still, I couldn’t get past the fact that most of the action – beyond just the dialogue – remained in the center channel.

hearingimpared

Mike, my wife and I, with great anticipation watched this "movie" and it is the worse "movie" I ever saw. Certainly not worthy of another review.

My review besides it sucked; boring, stupid story line if you could call it that, lousy acting, about as scary as 'The Nutty Professor,' and a totally predictable ending.

bigaudiofanatic

If a movie can make me jump like this one did towards the end it gets my vote. Not many movies can get me to do that this one did.

Knucklehead

I couldnt watch the whole movie.....what a waste of time.

Jstas

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

If a movie can make me jump like this one did towards the end it gets my vote. Not many movies can get me to do that this one did.

You cried over Avatar, what the hell do you know?

hearingimpared

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

If a movie can make me jump like this one did towards the end it gets my vote. Not many movies can get me to do that this one did.

First off I had trouble getting through the whole movie, secondly everything including the ending was so predictable that it didn't startle me at all.

Hillbilly61

hearingimpared wrote: »

Mike, my wife and I, with great anticipation watched this "movie" and it is the worse "movie" I ever saw. Certainly not worthy of another review.

My review besides it sucked; boring, stupid story line if you could call it that, lousy acting, about as scary as 'The Nutty Professor,' and a totally predictable ending.

+ 1. Once checked out on previews, the same came back to me during my gullible young age: Blair Witch.

I was not duped to dropped money in a theater, but was duped to rent it as a far lower cost. That "ghost story" was more or less people screaming in their tent.

This "ghost story" just preys upon the next generation's gullability. With some time, it will not even make the Wallmart "bargain bin."

Mike LoManaco

As I said, everyone, I was going to get raped at the stake for these opinions...

I am one of the few who actually were jolted from the seat during some of the sequences; the audiences that went into this expecting Exorcist-like fright tactics and levels of gore in line with, say, The Thing were going to be greatly disappointed. That wasn't the point of the narrative, pacing or script -- the point was to imagine being in your bedroom each night, as these idiotic twits were, and being continuously "bothered" by something you couldn't see or understand. If you went into this expecting big-budget thrills and heavy-handed CGI, you simply weren't in the correct frame of mind to take in the film. You had to imagine that bedroom being yours and not knowing what each passing night was going to bring -- invisible footsteps, odd noises that couldn't be identified even on a sound analyzer, attacks by an unseen "presence"...I don't think Hollywood makes enough of these kinds of "suspense-built-in" pictures anymore. I happened to be one of the few who also found Open Waters genuinely frightening because I was not expecting a remake of Jaws as millions of other theatergoers were -- you had to imagine being out in that water, with no help anywhere in plain sight, trying to escape a circling Great White...close your eyes and try to imagine it. This was the same premise of Paranormal Activity and I definitely think it worked.

The acting -- or should I say attempt at acting -- was another matter altogether. These were cardboard characters cut as thin as Jason Alexander's final strip of Hulk Hogan-like hair rim, and much like the senseless, one-dimensional "acting" in Cloverfield, the performance on display here was absolutely laughable. But, again, that wasn't the point.

At any rate, I did find it to be a refreshing change from the likes of Shutter, The Unborn, Mirrors you name it...these were genuine thrills which weren't born as some Asian "graphic novel" and then haphazardly handled by a bootleg studio or flash-in-the-pan director. The DVD's quality was surprisingly sharp during upconversion, but the audio could have been a smidget more aggressively layered.

hearingimpared

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

As I said, everyone, I was going to get raped at the stake for these opinions...

I am one of the few who actually were jolted from the seat during some of the sequences; the audiences that went into this expecting Exorcist-like fright tactics and levels of gore in line with, say, The Thing were going to be greatly disappointed. That wasn't the point of the narrative, pacing or script -- the point was to imagine being in your bedroom each night, as these idiotic twits were, and being continuously "bothered" by something you couldn't see or understand. If you went into this expecting big-budget thrills and heavy-handed CGI, you simply weren't in the correct frame of mind to take in the film. You had to imagine that bedroom being yours and not knowing what each passing night was going to bring -- invisible footsteps, odd noises that couldn't be identified even on a sound analyzer, attacks by an unseen "presence"...I don't think Hollywood makes enough of these kinds of "suspense-built-in" pictures anymore. I happened to be one of the few who also found Open Waters genuinely frightening because I was not expecting a remake of Jaws as millions of other theatergoers were -- you had to imagine being out in that water, with no help anywhere in plain sight, trying to escape a circling Great White...close your eyes and try to imagine it. This was the same premise of Paranormal Activity and I definitely think it worked.

The acting -- or should I say attempt at acting -- was another matter altogether. These were cardboard characters cut as thin as Jason Alexander's final strip of Hulk Hogan-like hair rim, and much like the senseless, one-dimensional "acting" in Cloverfield, the performance on display here was absolutely laughable. But, again, that wasn't the point.

At any rate, I did find it to be a refreshing change from the likes of Shutter, The Unborn, Mirrors you name it...these were genuine thrills which weren't born as some Asian "graphic novel" and then haphazardly handled by a bootleg studio or flash-in-the-pan director. The DVD's quality was surprisingly sharp during upconversion, but the audio could have been a smidget more aggressively layered.

Eh, did you actually think I

"raped [you] at the stake for these opinions"

for expressing my opinions about this "movie?"

I you recall I asked for opinions in one of these threads about if it was goring, sexual, knock you out of your seat moments etc because we where interested in letting out freshly turned 13 year old to watch the movie. Most everyone said, in their opinion, including you, that it was okay for him to watch and most said it wasn't good. So based on those opinions, my wife (who loves this **** and watches it constantly on TV like "TAPS) and I weren't expecting the Exorcist (which by the I found hilarious rather than scary) gore or fright factor.

I think all movies of this nature are meant to put one in the place of the "victim(s)" which is what I did with this 'movie' and found it boring and more more rediculous as the movie went on.

I stated my opinion on THE MOVIE not you. Man are you touchy.:rolleyes: The way you are reacting, one would think you were the creator, executive producer, producer, director, actors and all the other players being needed to make this move and taking the critque personally. Geez, I now see what all the hullabaloo is when it comes to you and your reviews.

I won't be reading or stating my opinion of movies in threads you create ever again.

One last thing, this is really the first time I have gone into detail about a thread you created on a movie. I am stating for the record that I did not nor am I now attacking you. I am reacting to what I think was your childish, egotistical remark. So if you feel the need to report this response feel free, it's just my opinion and reaction.

Mike LoManaco

hearingimpared wrote: »

Eh, did you actually think I for expressing my opinions about this "movie?"

I you recall I asked for opinions in one of these threads about if it was goring, sexual, knock you out of your seat moments etc because we where interested in letting out freshly turned 13 year old to watch the movie. Most everyone said, in their opinion, including you, that it was okay for him to watch and most said it wasn't good. So based on those opinions, my wife (who loves this **** and watches it constantly on TV like "TAPS) and I weren't expecting the Exorcist (which by the I found hilarious rather than scary) gore or fright factor.

I stated my opinion on THE MOVIE not you. Man are you touchy.:rolleyes:

Calm down. I wasn't referring specifically to you. :rolleyes:

Yes, I do remember you asking those questions about the nature of the film. Yes, I do remember responding to them. I was using The Exorcist as an example of a contrasting style of horror -- THAT'S ALL. Nothing more.

The fact that you found those moments in the 1974 masterpiece "hilarious" concerns me though; I found the same disturbing behavior in theaters amongst teenagers and demographics a bit younger than that when the film was re-released to include footage authorized by William Peter Blatty and William Friedkin, hence "The Version You've Never Seen." When a theater full of obnoxiously rude, practically brain dead tweens start bellowing and laughing at religiously disturbing images, I knew we had a problem.

Mike LoManaco

hearingimpared wrote: »

I think all movies of this nature are meant to put one in the place of the "victim(s)" which is what I did with this 'movie' and found it boring and more more rediculous as the movie went on.

You're missing the entire point. To re-install in our consciousness that you found it to be even more boring beyond this confirms the notion.

I stated my opinion on THE MOVIE not you. Man are you touchy.:rolleyes: The way you are reacting, one would think you were the creator, executive producer, producer, director, actors and all the other players being needed to make this move and taking the critque personally. Geez, I now see what all the hullabaloo is when it comes to you and your reviews.

Oh boy...absolutely and utterly ridiculous. That's not what I'm getting at, and isn't accurate in the least.

I won't be reading or stating my opinion of movies in threads you create ever again.

If your definition of "opinion" equates to how you attacked my character and choice of plot analysis based on MY perspective of this film, please don't; it just doesn't make any sense.

hearingimpared

Mike LoManaco wrote: »

Calm down. I wasn't referring specifically to you. :rolleyes:

Yes, I do remember you asking those questions about the nature of the film. Yes, I do remember responding to them. I was using The Exorcist as an example of a contrasting style of horror -- THAT'S ALL. Nothing more.

The fact that you found those moments in the 1974 masterpiece "hilarious" concerns me though; I found the same disturbing behavior in theaters amongst teenagers and demographics a bit younger than that when the film was re-released to include footage authorized by William Peter Blatty and William Friedkin, hence "The Version You've Never Seen." When a theater full of obnoxiously rude, practically brain dead tweens start bellowing and laughing at religiously disturbing images, I knew we had a problem.

I was a teenager at the time the Exorcist came out. After hearing all my friends telling me how scared shitless, and disturbing the movie was, I went to see it. Sorry but I laughed my **** off during most of the movie. I couldn't see the fright factor but all the hilarious responses the demon gave to the priests as well as the pea soup, head spinning, crucifix plunging into her privates and what was said during it, etc . as anything but funny.

kuntasensei

Oh, and by the way... I thought it was a good cheap flick that maybe moved a bit too slowly, but had some half-decent acting (at least on the female lead's part) and was genuinely creepy (though not particularly "scary"). Not saying the movie didn't have its problems, but considering the budget and constraints, I thought they did a pretty good job with it. But I think if you bought into all the advance hype before you watched it, you were bound to be disappointed.

hearingimpared

Gotcha! I want to reiterate, I was participating in this thread by posting my impressions of the movie. I had no idea that it would get into a debate as to whether or not I agreed or disagreed with Mike's review. I made no attacks. I did however take his statement of be "raped at the stake" to include my contibution too because he made a blanket statement about be "raped" so I responded in what I thought was civil manner and just made a comment that Mike seems to take the negative comments I made of of the movie personally.

I wasn't and still am not in this thread to start trouble. I was simply doing what we always do on this forum . . . express opinions, hopefully based on experience. With that said, I'm out of this thread.

[Deleted User]

Everybody calm down, take a deep breath, let it out slowly. Surely we can discuss a movie without a verbal battle, right?
Thanks, Ken

cnoat

I thought it was pretty good.

Ricardo

I've got an idea. Mods should shut down all these reviews as soon as they are posted, so that Mike's view of the movie is the only one. Problem solved.

[Deleted User]

Xcapri79 has the right idea. If you want a give and take discourse with someone you don't agree with say something like, "I see what you're saying, but, in my opinion..." Or, "That might be true, but I think...". Or ask someone to explain what leads them to that opinion.
"So, you feel that (CDs, vinyl, tubes, solid state, whatever is at discussion) sounds like (fill in the blank), but when I listen I hear (fill in your blank)." Get the other person to further explain their opinion instead of reacting to your comeback.
Who knows, everybody might learn something?
Thanks, Ken

comfortablycurt

I didn't even bother to read Mikes(second) review on this movie...but this movie completely sucked. PA was THE WORST movie I have seen in the last 5 years or so. I'm not even exaggerating. I don't even know how I managed to sit through the whole thing.

It wasn't suspenseful...it wasn't scary, it never surprised me...and there was never a hot bedroom sex scene.

Nothing happens in the entire movie!! They're just sitting there!! "Oh my god, a footprint showed up in the dust!!!!":rolleyes:

Less than 0 out of 5 on the LoCurtico scale.



Just for the record, I'm not trying to rape you at the stake with this post, Mike.:rolleyes:


I'd rather be the one at the stake being raped. It kind of sounds exciting....

kuntasensei

cnh

Haven't seen it boys. But I would like to say one thing! Yes Mike's reviews are long! But so are the reviews of most movie critics you read in Newspapers. Regardless of what I think or don't think about Mike's reviews, opinions or taste. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with a long review of a film? I sometimes find the discussion here verging on the anti-intellectual, like we shouldn't be articulate or write more than a few sentences on this site. That good writing is a bad thing or intimidates?? I am neither defending Mike nor disagreeing with anyone above. I haven't seen the film but I've read enough of Mike's reviews to recognize some of my students' responses to certain kinds of writing and discourses.

I'm with Ken. It's OK. Let the man speak and debate and disagree as you wish. I moderate college classrooms all the time....and it ain't easy, if you know what I mean, because we CAN and do talk about politics, religion and sex...more often than not!

cnh

SolidSqual

This movie was retarded. The intended suspense was predictable and fleeting.

kuntasensei

cnh wrote: »

Haven't seen it boys. But I would like to say one thing! Yes Mike's reviews are long! But so are the reviews of most movie critics you read in Newspapers. Regardless of what I think or don't think about Mike's reviews, opinions or taste. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with a long review of a film? I sometimes find the discussion here verging on the anti-intellectual, like we shouldn't be articulate or write more than a few sentences on this site. That good writing is a bad thing or intimidates?? I am neither defending Mike nor disagreeing with anyone above. I haven't seen the film but I've read enough of Mike's reviews to recognize some of my students' responses to certain kinds of writing and discourses.

I'm with Ken. It's OK. Let the man speak and debate and disagree as you wish. I moderate college classrooms all the time....and it ain't easy, if you know what I mean, because we CAN and do talk about politics, religion and sex...more often than not!

cnh

If you think the length or quality is the issue, then you haven't been paying attention. Either way...

hearingimpared

kuntasensei wrote: »

Do you have one with some one walking on rusty razor blades laid on hot coals? That would be more appropriate! LMAO! WAAAAAAAA!!!:D;)

shawn474

cnh wrote: »

Haven't seen it boys. But I would like to say one thing! Yes Mike's reviews are long! But so are the reviews of most movie critics you read in Newspapers. Regardless of what I think or don't think about Mike's reviews, opinions or taste. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with a long review of a film? I sometimes find the discussion here verging on the anti-intellectual, like we shouldn't be articulate or write more than a few sentences on this site. That good writing is a bad thing or intimidates?? I am neither defending Mike nor disagreeing with anyone above. I haven't seen the film but I've read enough of Mike's reviews to recognize some of my students' responses to certain kinds of writing and discourses.

I'm with Ken. It's OK. Let the man speak and debate and disagree as you wish. I moderate college classrooms all the time....and it ain't easy, if you know what I mean, because we CAN and do talk about politics, religion and sex...more often than not!

cnh

So in summary you are defending Mike. He should be able to write a review here (as long as it follows the forum rules) without people threadcrapping on his post. I haven't once read his reviews in their entirety. The ones who have a problem with it spend more time reading it and coming up with a witty response rather than ignoring it. I don't quite understand the mentality there. The fact that Ken still has to post is pretty ridiculous.

kuntasensei

I just think people need to thicken their skin up so we're not all walking on eggshells, because it sucks the fun right out of this joint. If someone busts your balls, just take it for what it is... 'cause for the most part, this place is friendlier than Mr. Rogers riding a unicorn down Sesame Street. Just sayin'.

And I'm still guilty of thinking Paranormal Activity was kinda' fun.

shawn474

kuntasensei wrote: »

I just think people need to thicken their skin up so we're not all walking on eggshells, because it sucks the fun right out of this joint. If someone busts your balls, just take it for what it is... 'cause for the most part, this place is friendlier than Mr. Rogers riding a unicorn down Sesame Street. Just sayin'.

And I'm still guilty of thinking Paranormal Activity was kinda' fun.

Fundamentally I agree with you. But having thousands of members on an internet forum is not the place. What I find funny some find offensive and vice versa. So in the spirit of the forum, thread crapping has been discouraged (for obvious reasons). Read it if you want or don't if you want. If you read it and feel compelled to add to it, then do so on the spirit it was intended. If you don't have anything nice to say, refrain and move on. It really isn't that hard.

comfortablycurt

kuntasensei wrote: »

I just think people need to thicken their skin up so we're not all walking on eggshells, because it sucks the fun right out of this joint. If someone busts your balls, just take it for what it is... 'cause for the most part, this place is friendlier than Mr. Rogers riding a unicorn down Sesame Street. Just sayin'.

We are sooo on the same page here.

Anymore, I find myself not even pushing the "submit reply" button half the time...because I'm worried that someone might be offended and report me.

I miss lightman hiding in the bushes... and doro running around in assless chaps while Sonia the maid serves up some delicious slices of pie.

Oh well. Club Polk is politically correct now...guess we're all gonna have to learn to deal with it.



LoCurtico

shawn474

I love the fact that we have 20-70 year old men and women on this forum that want everyone to let these comments just roll off the back and "grow thicker skin". It's not about being politically correct; it's about being cordial in a diverse and populated forum where differences of opinion occur. There are constructive ways to have these discussions and childish ways. More and more, people here think the childish way is best. Hence, the rule enforcement and changes. This place hasn't become this way because people can't take a joke. It's become this way because Polk doesn't want this behavior to represent their product.

WHAT THE F IS SO HARD ABOUT THE IGNORE FEATURE AND RESTRAINT?!?!?!?!:rolleyes: Leave Mike to his long movie reviews. What does it hurt to let the thread get relegated to the second page instead of bumping them with personal jabs and needling that leads to nothing but reported posts and BS. It's comical really that grown men can't act like adults and then when called out say, "Everyone needs to grow thicker skin around here."

It's no wonder I haven't been participating on the forum lately.

kuntasensei

I get what you're saying, Shawn... and I agree to some extent. I'll respond to you by PM so we aren't further poking the beehive.