23 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

New trailer released, looks fantastic.




I hope it'll be as great as the first.

[Zorin Industries]

I really rate the first one. Took a while to get going but - like the characters - you saw more and realised more if you wound back the film (i.e. the powder footprints appearing round the girl's feet as she waits for the husband to come down from the attic).

And have you checked out the last shot of the baby's room in this trail? Look at the mirror and the cot.

[Aris007]

Well I admitt that the first film was very clever as a plot and as production, but once they smelled money they though why not a second? Wrong! Making a second film destroyed the unexpected feeling or the feeling of surprise that the first one caused. And it's not genuine anymore. Not that the first was, but anyway. That's why I think that this film will not be good. Cause they've run out of ideas.

[tdalton]

Well I admitt that the first film was very clever as a plot and as production, but once they smelled money they though why not a second? Wrong! Making a second film destroyed the unexpected feeling or the feeling of surprise that the first one caused. And it's not genuine anymore. Not that the first was, but anyway. That's why I think that this film will not be good. Cause they've run out of ideas.

I wouldn't necessarily say that they've run out of ideas at this point. I thought that the first film was quite good, and the teaser for the sequel is every bit as creepy as the first film. Sure, it could turn out to be completely terrible (in fact, I'd probably say that the odds favor it going that way, given previous attempts at making such out of nowhwere films into franchises), but for a film that I wasn't particularly interested in seeing (I was content to leave PARANORMAL ACTIVITY as a standalone feature), the teaser has me rather intrigued to see it. It seems as though they've raised the stakes from the first film quite appropriately, and it'll be interesting to see what they do with it.

One thing that will probably turn out to be a good thing for the film, regardless of quality of the end product, is the changing of directors for this film.

[Aris007]

Well I admitt that the first film was very clever as a plot and as production, but once they smelled money they though why not a second? Wrong! Making a second film destroyed the unexpected feeling or the feeling of surprise that the first one caused. And it's not genuine anymore. Not that the first was, but anyway. That's why I think that this film will not be good. Cause they've run out of ideas.

I wouldn't necessarily say that they've run out of ideas at this point. I thought that the first film was quite good, and the teaser for the sequel is every bit as creepy as the first film. Sure, it could turn out to be completely terrible (in fact, I'd probably say that the odds favor it going that way, given previous attempts at making such out of nowhwere films into franchises), but for a film that I wasn't particularly interested in seeing (I was content to leave PARANORMAL ACTIVITY as a standalone feature), the teaser has me rather intrigued to see it. It seems as though they've raised the stakes from the first film quite appropriately, and it'll be interesting to see what they do with it.

One thing that will probably turn out to be a good thing for the film, regardless of quality of the end product, is the changing of directors for this film.

Well the main feature that made this film special was that it surprised the audience. It was genuine. Nobody had seen anything like that before. Now, everybody knows the techique, the plot. It's fake now. That's why I wouldn't go to see it. You don't do the same trick. You do the new one.

[Zorin Industries]

I think the story of the first film did warrant more of an explanation.

[Loomis]

I'm C&ping some stuff I wrote here a few weeks ago after seeing PARANORMAL ACTIVITY:

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY seems genuinely fresh and innovative. Most importantly, though, it works.

I do have a couple of small gripes: while the film goes to some lengths to explain away one of the most common questions in this genre (namely "Why the heck don't they just get out of that haunted house?!?!?!?!"), the behaviour of the camera-toting young couple sometimes seems unconvincing. Also, there's a somewhat heavyhanded subplot involving online investigations that appears to be shoehorned in merely to give PARANORMAL ACTIVITY some franchise potential.

All that aside, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY more than delivers in terms of what it sets out to do. It's thrillingly original and deliciously scary, spinning terror from even the most mundane situations, notably someone simply standing still (you'll have to watch the film to realise why this is so chilling, though). And the ending took me completely by surprise and knocked me for six.

Terrific stuff.

However....

I hate the idea of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY becoming a franchise. What are they going to do? Make a whole series of films about young suburban couples who buy video cameras to record things that go bump in the night? Or, even worse,

Spoiler

turn Katie into a Freddy Krueger-style villain who possesses other women

?

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is perfect at is is (well, no, it does have flaws, but they're outweighed many times over by its strengths). I don't need to see it redone. I don't want it to become the most popular long-running thing with a ticking timecode since 24. Most of all, I definitely don't require any backstory, any prequelising, any fleshed-out "mythology", explanation or expansion of the first film. Just let it lie. Much scarier and more satisfying that way.

All of that said, though, the idea of Brian De Palma directing PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 was so utterly insane as to actually be supercool, and I rather wish it had happened purely to see how such a nutty/ballsy move would have turned out.

I haven't checked out the trailer for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2, but I do plan to sit down to the film on DVD/Blu-ray and watch it with suitably lowered expectations. Who knows? It may be a decent enough rental.

[Zorin Industries]

Thank you Loomis. Glad we can agree on something (!).

The thing with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is you need to see it at home on the small screen. I would imagine the cinema and twatty audience members would ruin it.

I love the fact when I saw it there were a few things I thought I noticed and - winding the footage back as the characters do - I was proved right.

I agree - get out the bloody house you fools and she is a bit wet and he is annoying but so are real couples (they were actually married in real life).

[Loomis]

The thing with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is you need to see it at home on the small screen.

Oh, absolutely. And turn all the lights off first, natch.

The thing with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is you need to see it at home on the small screen. I would imagine the cinema and twatty audience members would ruin it.

Definitely. I once attended a cinema screening of THE EXORCIST (in the days when it was banned on video) that was marred by an idiotic bunch of young people sitting near me. They were constantly making mocking remarks like "Ooh, this is so scary - NOT!" and were basically wrecking the film for those of us who were prepared to take it for what it was and go with it.

Fortunately, they clammed up once they were made aware that they were pissing people off, but, honestly, why do wisecrackers who think they're above it all even bother going to horror films?

[DamnCoffee]

The thing with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is you need to see it at home on the small screen. I would imagine the cinema and twatty audience members would ruin it.

Definitely. I once attended a cinema screening of THE EXORCIST (in the days when it was banned on video) that was marred by an idiotic bunch of young people sitting near me. They were constantly making mocking remarks like "Ooh, this is so scary - NOT!" and were basically wrecking the film for those of us who were prepared to take it for what it was and go with it.

Fortunately, they clammed up once they were made aware that they were pissing people off, but, honestly, why do wisecrackers who think they're above it all even bother going to horror films?

Yeah, that annoys me greatly. I went to see HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE twice in cinema's, the first time it was ruined by a bunch of girls, laughing rather loudly, at, well, nothing. The second time, I saw it at a more respectable outlet, and what do you know, school kids started screaming half way through. It rather pissed me off.

[Zorin Industries]

There are very few horrors I will see at the cinema. It is one genre that I will make the concession for on DVD. Unless of course it is the likes of some cheesy fare like MY BLOODY VALENTINE (which the wife drags me to more times than I would like) which needs an audience totally.

I too had a bad experience first time round with THE EXORICST (when it got released in October 1998). Twatty audience members not getting the whole (Catholic) point of it were very annoying.

Re MHarkin... complain to the cinema staff and ask for the manager and your money back. I went to town when I had to walk out of THE OMEN remake (which I since saw and fairly despised). The staff had let in kids, denied responsibility for that and could they be removed.

No-one does enough of this, but say to the manager (the unwashed foot soldiers are useless to complain to, as are most managers to be fair) that "you are providing an experience... I am paying for an experience not a meal nor a pair of jeans or a book... you have a contractual obligation to marshall those screens as soon as you take my money.. and if that experience is marred, I want my money back".

I remember seeing MOULIN ROUGE once and the sound was awful (imagine a transistor radio, if you can young mHarkin). The staff said that was what the director intended. I hit the rain-stained roof, caused a scene then others chimed in with the same criticisms. Suddenly we were all offered comps and our money back.

It is one of my crusades - better cinema management. It is awful in Britain with Odeon being my local and the worst offender. I also don't know why cinema foyers have to have fruit machines, lucky dip old tat toys and dance machines. NOR do I get why cinemas like Odeon show Formula One, ballets and football matches. I don't remember IRON MAN 2 playing on the racetrack at Silverstone last time I was there.

It has been known for me to turn round and ask two fairly respectable women to "shut the up as I don't give a toss what you had for lunch".

Oh, you've got me riled now...!!

[Safari Suit]

The worst sound I've ever heard in one of them there thee-aters was a cheapie screening of Wedding Crashers. I thought I must have missed out on half the jokes from what I'd heard was an uproarious comedy. Then I saw the DVD...

I also took some younger family members to see a certain squeaky-voiced critter-fest I'd prefer not to confess to by name, and the first reel or so had been framed wrong, so characters and objects were all squeazed horizontally and in many scenes boom mikes and other equipment were visible for long periods of time!

Without wishing to stir up a hornet's nest or whatever the expression is, was the 1998 re-release/post-ban release of The Exorcist reportedly inspiring many laughter-drenched screenings (more so than scream-drenched ones) perhaps revealing of more than twatishness?

[coco1997]

Am I really the only person who didn't find the first film the least bit scary? What an overrated pile of .

[tdalton]

All of that said, though, the idea of Brian De Palma directing PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 was so utterly insane as to actually be supercool, and I rather wish it had happened purely to see how such a nutty/ballsy move would have turned out.

I was very excited for that possibility as well, and very disappointed that it didn't happen. I will say, though, we're lucky that it's Tod Williams in the director's chair, as originally they had the director of SAW VI on the project, and that film was the worst mainstream horror film of at least the last decade, if not longer.

But a Brian De Palma PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 would have been, at the very least, an extremely interesting idea and one that would have demanded attention just due to how that pairing would have come from out of nowhere.

[JimmyBond]

Huh? Saw 6 was the best Saw movie since part 3

[tdalton]

Huh? Saw 6 was the best Saw movie since part 3

I know from our many discussions on the topic that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I am glad that you enjoyed it, though. I wish I could have gotten the same enjoyment out of VI that I had gotten out of I, II, and V, which I think are at the top of the heap by a considerable margin.

[DamnCoffee]

Looks pretty damn cool!

[SecretAgentFan]

Here I must disagree. It seems to be the same trickery, only with a family setting. All the quick cuts and sound effects seem to disguise the emptiness of the plot.

[coco1997]

As with the first one, does not look remotely scary.

[Matt_13]

Ghost Adventures on the Travel Channel is far more frightening.

[Loomis]

Well, I'm disappointed to report that I found PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 a massive letdown. The magic has not worked twice, and this film has nothing new to offer.

For the first forty minutes, it's a monumental bore - a slow setup with gradually building tension worked superbly last time round, but now that the audience knows what it's in for with this franchise there's no justification for such a long delay in anything happening, and I do mean anything whatsoever. It's like a compilation of the dullest early morning clips from the Big Brother household. There's no excuse to make the viewer wait nearly an hour just to hear a cupboard door slam or see a pan fall from a shelf. It's just a boring retread of the original, and one that shamelessly incorporates some well-worn genre clichés (as Roger Ebert puts it in his review: "The dog is always there barking at something, because dogs, like ethnic nannies, Know About These Things.")

As well as more or less merely rehashing the original film (with even less appealing characters), the makers of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 failed to heed the wisdom that less is more - the backstory involving the sisters as children and the wager with the demon is redundant. The film would have been much scarier without any of this so-called "explanation". Not being told what's behind all this, erm, paranormal activity would have resulted in a rather more chilling experience (see PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK for a great example of how leaving conclusions to the viewer's own imagination can work brilliantly).

All of that said, though, I remain curious to see PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3, which I gather will be released later this year. Hopefully they'll ring the changes a bit next time round.

[Shaun Forever]

I liked it myself, but the first one was far better.


What route do you think they will take for the third Loomis?

[Loomis]

Unfortunately, I think it's inevitable that they'll bring back Katie and that they'll feel the need to explain what happened to

Spoiler

Hunter, who I guess will need to be rescued somehow

. As I pointed out a few posts ago, I don't want Katie

Spoiler

to be turned into a Freddy Kreuger-style villain

, but it would seem that PARANORMAL ACTIVITY will become more of a standard horror franchise with each new film.

I'd far rather that PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 had nothing to do with the people in the first two films and simply borrowed the basic idea of the original and gave us a new unseen "demon" in a new household. I'm not interested in the wager with the demon or learning more about what happened to Katie and her sister as children. I want something uncomplicated, stripped-down and basic (but scary, just like the original). And it could be tied into the earlier films with a note at the start telling us that, during the course of its ongoing investigations, the police department has discovered tapes from another family with similarities to the case of Katie and her folks.

At any rate, I can't see how PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 could be in any way fresh or frightening if it simply picks up from the events of the first two and continues the Katie storyline. But I'm sure that's what we're going to get.

[SecretAgentFan]

Wouldn´t it be much more interesting to get new, original scary films on Halloween instead of having one franchise another (SAW, now PA) block the date?

In other words: PA may have been frightening the first time but a gimmick like that wears out quickly. How many films do they have to make until the audience grows tired of watching video surveillance tapes (or gets a job where that kind of work is included)?