I liked the first one, cause I thought it did a very good job on creating a look that felt like real found footage. However the second one looks anything but, and totally took me out of the illusion. Everything is shot on Grade A cameras and microphones, when it was suppose to be found footage from a home security camera. Why didn't they just shoot it from real security cameras, to make it seem more real?
Thoughts on Paranonormal Activity 2.
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
I didn't have a problem with the look. I'm sure there are security cameras that have nice resolution. A lot of security camera footage that you see in reality shows came from VHS tapes in super-extended play/record mode. They usually have to cover the whole shop, whereas this movie had one in every room, plus the handicam.
I liked the first movie and I also liked this one. I was happy that there were many more attacks, floating babies, twice the dragging and actual horror violence at the end. In other words, a lot more happened. It also had more humor and dynamics, because more people were involved, yet the tone was nicely similar.
This movie had a different director (Tod Williams, instead of Oren Peli) and I thought he did a fantastic job.
I liked the first movie and I also liked this one. I was happy that there were many more attacks, floating babies, twice the dragging and actual horror violence at the end. In other words, a lot more happened. It also had more humor and dynamics, because more people were involved, yet the tone was nicely similar.
This movie had a different director (Tod Williams, instead of Oren Peli) and I thought he did a fantastic job.
I wouldn't say it had more humor. It the scares did have more going on, but in smaller doses, if that makes sense. Plus I found the scares to be more random and contrived, rather than having a more effective creepy thing happening, like the first.
2nd movie was pointless, and really missed the point.
The conceit of the video camera works in the first one -- more importantly, is organic -- but feels contrived in the second. Also, the first film was all about suggestion (no budget, and better horror), the second about showing how much money they were allowed to spend on effects.
Loved the first movie, could care less about the second. I also really enjoyed, in the same tradition, "The Last Exorcism."
The conceit of the video camera works in the first one -- more importantly, is organic -- but feels contrived in the second. Also, the first film was all about suggestion (no budget, and better horror), the second about showing how much money they were allowed to spend on effects.
Loved the first movie, could care less about the second. I also really enjoyed, in the same tradition, "The Last Exorcism."
Although the first movie had an interesting concept and was well executed for what it was, I found it highly boring. I mean, it REALLY bored me, almost to the point of tears. I watched 'til the end, so that must count for something, but... boooooore-iiiing.
I totally agree with Scoopicman, although still not particularly scary, at least it has elements of horror in it. That in itself makes it a better horror film. And I have to admit, I pretty much shat myself when all the cupboards in the kitchen burst open (I did consider puttng this in spoiler tags, but if you haven't seen the film yet, you won't be expecting this to happen when it does anyway!).
I also think they did a great job of tying the two films together. I'm interested to see where they go with Part. III.
I totally agree with Scoopicman, although still not particularly scary, at least it has elements of horror in it. That in itself makes it a better horror film. And I have to admit, I pretty much shat myself when all the cupboards in the kitchen burst open (I did consider puttng this in spoiler tags, but if you haven't seen the film yet, you won't be expecting this to happen when it does anyway!).
I also think they did a great job of tying the two films together. I'm interested to see where they go with Part. III.
The scene with the cupboards was fantastically scary, but aside from that I found most of the first half to be set up in an unfocused way, with scenes that if you cut them out it wouldn't have even mattered. The first one did a better job at giving us a set up with just a little more substance to it. But the second half was too full of characters doing dumb things that were questionable I thought, and it wasn't as convincing behavior for me as the first.
But my biggest criticism was still the footage looking to good for a faux documentary taken from security cameras.
But my biggest criticism was still the footage looking to good for a faux documentary taken from security cameras.
I think that these Flukebuster films such as Blair Witch and Paranormal activity are not worth studying or emulating. If you thought you had bad odds getting a real movie into theaters, try waiting 10 years for one slot of interest to open up for something like this. Found footage is an outright gimmick, and not really that good of one. I've seen two movies in a decade that managed to skate by on this premise.
"Flukebuster"?
Who ya gonna call?!
Who ya gonna call?!
I Always thought paranormal activity was more of a thriller than horror, scaring the audience with suspense as oppose to things shown. Though nothing happened, but it was effective. It is good entirely due to the audience don't know what to expect.
The second one however, because it's the same time of film, it is predictable. It's just more door moving, things floating, and violence done by shapeless forms. I think it'd be better than the first for someone who've never seen the first film. but for someone who has, it's just... repetition...
The second one however, because it's the same time of film, it is predictable. It's just more door moving, things floating, and violence done by shapeless forms. I think it'd be better than the first for someone who've never seen the first film. but for someone who has, it's just... repetition...
What are the two movies, Nate?
Only one I've seen is Blair Witch and particularly for the time - (as far as I know) before viral marketing or ARG's - it's presentation was fantastic. With the Internet police footage stuff and such.. Making something cool out of very little.
Plus that last scene did what it was supposed to for me..
Only one I've seen is Blair Witch and particularly for the time - (as far as I know) before viral marketing or ARG's - it's presentation was fantastic. With the Internet police footage stuff and such.. Making something cool out of very little.
Plus that last scene did what it was supposed to for me..
I thought Paranormal Activity 2 did a decent enough job.
Going down the prequel route and weaving it into the original's narrative was actually pretty clever and a much better sequel than,say, the Saw movies ever had. I didn't have a problem with the production quality- it's a film, I know it's a film and therefore whilst I'm willing to buy into the found footage premise I still want it to be good quality picture and sound.
It's not great by any means but it could've been much, much worse.
Going down the prequel route and weaving it into the original's narrative was actually pretty clever and a much better sequel than,say, the Saw movies ever had. I didn't have a problem with the production quality- it's a film, I know it's a film and therefore whilst I'm willing to buy into the found footage premise I still want it to be good quality picture and sound.
It's not great by any means but it could've been much, much worse.
What's the difference here? Horrors are like thrillers but are suppose to just be more 'scary'. So I'd call it a horror.
You know what they could have had to make it seem more like found footage, is to have bad sound and give it subtitles, like they do with security camera footage used on real documentary shows.
Last edited:
Sometimes thrillers are more scary. I don't find FRANKENSTEIN, THE MUMMY, giant insects or ARMY OF THE DEAD scary at all, but they have monsters and are horror. If it's supernatural, or has a demon and possession in it, it is horror. It just happened to be horror with a strong dose of suspense. Hitchcock dealt with suspense, but when the murder became horrific enough, PSYCHO was included in almost every horror text. Of course, the killer was demented enough - acting out as his dead mother and keeping her skeleton around - that it crossed genres in a couple of ways.
Maybe they were fluke discoveries, but the scare power of at least one of those (for half of the audiences, including Spielberg, who got freaked) was no fluke. It wouldn't matter what year they released it, the power is there.
What one could learn from "studying" PARANORMAL ACTIVITY: A dark house can be scary. Bump and thud sounds in the night are scary. That After Effects type of programs are really great for subtle FX like masking out a body, if you just want a shadow on the door, or someone being dragged by invisible forces. That the power of suggestion can make a blockbuster that no amount of makeup could replace. (Just as POV shots in JAWS were more scary than the shark.) That you could make an 11K movie in a house with just 2 main characters, if the subject matter is right. (HARD CANDY, anybody?) That fast forward time manipulation, then stopping for the "moment" to happen built anticipation. It's not so much about the "found footage" genre as it is some primal concepts. Comedy and horror share elements of buildup and surprise. It is timing and delivery, which many people lack.
I watched both of these movies, and wasn't even slightly impressed. so you made a styrofoam cup that holds water just like a real cup. That's not exactly genius, nor superior in any way.
So some kids bought an 11k lottery ticket and won, I'm not planning a career around that strategy.
Or maybe I'm just to old for someone to sell me a bigfoot with blurry security camera footage.
So some kids bought an 11k lottery ticket and won, I'm not planning a career around that strategy.
Or maybe I'm just to old for someone to sell me a bigfoot with blurry security camera footage.
No, but I was. So was a significant cross-section of the audience, which is why I'll never say it's a fluke. Those who liked it.....really liked it. Now, I don't particularly care for the LORD OF THE RINGS movies, but I don't deny that they were effective for a lot of people.
(Uh, why would you watch the second, when part one didn't do it for you???)
I watched INSIDIOUS, last night (also produced by Oren Peli, but written/directed by the SAW guys). It had some good scares, but none of the creep factor stayed with me, like it did after PARANORMAL. I believe that if I saw part 2, before part one, it would have had similar impact. You can say "Boo" convincingly twice, but it is the first one that surprises.
What I will concede, is that PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is one of those polarizing movies. I'm usually on the side of liking those, whether it be CLOVERFIELD, STARSHIP TROOPERS, THE GRUDGE or even a little bit of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (loved the creation of a witch legend that culminates with 100s of child handprints on the walls and the kid standing in the corner...) Hated the photography.
Well, I'm only 47 and this is the best shit, ever!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqFYsNuXysc
I second Hard Candy, it was great. And it is a truly suspenseful movie, because it's the only one that not all of my friends fell asleep through. So it can satisfy the lowest of attention spans. Not that a movie should, but it goes to show the suspense is effective lol. Hard Candy I wouldn't say is horror, but more suspense.
Last edited:
Yes, that is definitely suspense. I was using it as an example of a limited resources movie - how you can actually make an effective movie with just 2 people in a house. Similarly, DEATH AND THE MAIDEN or CLOSETLAND.
Last edited:
I never saw the first, couldnt suffer thru it. I have the DVD, got it bootleg when movie was in theater. S L O W as frozen molasses IMO
Fts with the other thread (Movies you haven't seen) because I didn't see the first one or the second. I have vague idea of what the deal is, and just no interest in seeing them.