HuffPost Review: Paranormal Activity (2009)

Paranormal Activity
2009
86 minutes (wrongly listed as 99 minutes on most websites)
Rated R

It is a rare thing to walk into a movie by choice expecting to dislike if not outright hate it. Yet off I went to a Saturday evening showing of Paranormal Activity, praying that it would not be a replay of The Blair Witch Project ten years prior. The ingredients were frighteningly similar. We had a no-budget horror film shot on a home video camera made to look like a documentary of real events, a reliance on implied terror and just off-screen menace that theoretically excused a lack of any actual scary imagery, and a carefully plotted advertising campaign that played up word of mouth from underground screenings and made the movie seem like an event that you had to experience before your friends did. But, the results are different this time. Maybe it's because I wasn't caught by surprise this time around, and thus I knew what I was getting into. Or maybe Paranormal Activity is just a better film than The Blair Witch Project. But while Paranormal Activity certainly is not the scariest film ever made, it also did not leave me with sharp feelings of anger, betrayal, and the distinct impression that the moviegoing populace had just been conned.

A token amount of plot - A young couple have recently moved in together into a new home, but they've been plagued by various loud noises and odd occurrences while they sleep. Determined to solve this mystery, the couple sets up a video camera in the corner of their bedroom to try to record some evidence of the mysterious goings-on. Needless to say, if they didn't happen to record some most disturbing stuff, then there would be no movie. But as the occurrences increase in quantity and quality, the young couple realize that this may be more complicated than a simple house-haunting. That's all you get and that's all you need. Unfortunately, the majority of the movie fails to truly terrify not because of its minuscule budget, but because of the film's strict adherence to its own rules. Horror films work best when you realize that you cannot trust the filmmakers. But writer/director Oren Peli crafts a low-tech chiller that almost plays too fair with the audience.

I hesitate to say more, because I don't want to spoil by implication (consider that a spoiler warning). But the film quickly sets a very specific pattern as to when the scares might come and when you can catch your breath. The very best scares (think the big jump-scenes in Jaws or Deep Blue Sea) usually come during 'time-out moments', when the plot and character seems to be developing in between horror set-pieces. But the world in Paranormal Activity is very strictly divided into 'potentially scary' and 'plot and character' scenes. Once that line is set in stone by the first third of the picture, we know that we will never, ever be caught off-guard. Furthermore (and this was a big issue with Blair Witch as well as the theatrical cut of One Hour Photo), the opening exposition basically establishes the fate of our major characters, so once again we understand that everything that happens until the end of the picture will be a false alarm of some kind.

Of course, one might find terror through empathizing with our young couple, but they aren't the least bit developed. While Katie Featherstein makes an empathetic victim as the primary target of terror, the male half (Micah Sloat) is written as annoying, unsympathetic, and occasionally counterproductive. Even more so than in The Blair Witch Project, the constant recording of every important moment of the narrative strains believability. So despite the ambitious ideas and somewhat successful execution, we are left with several false scares that all occur exactly on cue with very little to entertain us during the downtime (a wannabe ghost-buster provides rare comic relief).

Having said all of that, it's a more honest film that The Blair Witch Project. It won't make you dizzy, it's always in focus and easily audible at all times. The movie never really cheats and establishes a genuine filmmaking talent with just $11,000. If you must experience the would-be phenomenon, make sure to go to a packed theater, so you can at least enjoy the screams and shouts from more easily traumatized moviegoers. It's not a terribly scary film, but it is occasionally clever and it won't leave you feeling angry.

Grade: C+

For more box office, movie reviews, trailer reviews, news commentary, and original essays, go to Mendelson's Memos.

Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson

Comments

[Harpseal60]

We drove 50 miles (one way) to see this movie. What a waste of time and money! I scare easily and this was not a scary movie. I almost had to laugh when the footprints in the powder reminded me of a giant chicken, Oh no, look out for the giant chicken demon! Save your money and wait until its on video.

[khia213]

Don't watch this movie and expect the usual horror movie tropes. There are no cats, leaping from the sill to scare the heroine. No closing the medicine cabinet door, to see the reflected boogie man. It's not that movie. It's more creepy than scary. More tense than frightening. But that apparently didn't disappoint the audience I saw it with. Grown men screamed like little girls while watching it.

Scott, you may have been over-hyped for this movie, since I expect, as a critic, you've been hearing about it for awhile. When you get jaded by the hype, you can't watch it honestly or openly. I think the fact that it's an $11,000.00 film is to it's credit. They made the most of what they had to work with. The video camera conceit works for me. And the characters seemed more real than the teen age victim that we usually get. And unlike most haunted house stories, there was a real reason why the characters didn't just get out the house.

Is it the best horror film ever made? Probably not. Is it better than Saw and it's ilk? Oh, yeah. It's a great alternative to the torture porn that's out there now. And the real test of whether it's effective as a horror film, is whether after seeing it, you can sit in the dark in your home and resist the urge to turn on the lights. I don't scare easy and my lights now stay on.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

Agreed. Come what may, it's an impressive effort for just $11,000. And I made a point not to judge the movie against the advertising campaign.

[rjmiller]

Your main horror-specific criticism seems to be that this film didn't shout "BOO!" enough times. Personally, I'm tired of the suspense-a­nd-surpris­e method of horror movies, it's just annoying seeing it so many times.

[Wolfcrazy]

It's the typical complaint of unimaginative movie-goers who claim to enjoy horror films. They'd much rather have everything laid out before them in all its slimy unbelievability than to have to *gasp* rely on their own imagination to try to figure out what the monster is. Ultimately, what we imagine is ALWAYS scarier than anything they can show us on screen.

Unfortunately, most filmmakers simply don't get this. For instance, I thought M. Night's "Signs" was one of the most psychologically scary films I had seen in a long time...until they showed the alien at the end. Then it became stupid.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

I wasn't crazy about the alien reveal at the end either, but I felt the film had more than earned this minor whoopsie. Still, considering what a 'offscreen terror' filmmaker Shyamalan usually is, the appearance an actual alien was a genuine shock. For the record, I loved Signs.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

My problem wasn't that it didn't go 'BOO' enough times, but that I was able to correctly predict exactly when they would go 'BOO'. It's a story structure issue, which had nothing to do with the budget.

[caligyrl74]

I understand why you feel that way Scott, but I think that's precisely what made it better than average to me. I think the predictability is what created the 'tension.' I watched others in the theatre reacting the exact same way I did - as soon as it got dark you would hear people saying things like 'uh-oh' or 'here we go' and my reaction was to grab my boyfriends arm each and every time the lights went out. Knowing exactly when the action was going to begin created unease and allowed our imaginations to run wild, wondering what was coming next – you knew it was coming, but what would it be. One of the posts above stated that it was tense rather than frightening, and I agree with that completely. I would much rather see the horror films head in this direction then have to continue to suffer through the unnecessarily gory, unimaginative type of films that have dominated the genre for the past few years. They are boring, gross and certainly not scary on any level.

[Carnacamarna]

One horror movie recently that I found quite successful is The Children. I think it would suit your tastes, Scott.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm doing a list of 'best straight-to-DVD' horror sometime before Halloween, and The Children will likely be at the very top of the list. It's a staggeringly frightening and disturbing film.

[PuddinPie]

There a two films by that name. Are you referring to the 2008 film? I'd like to netflix it.

[CynAnne]

Excellent news, Scott. I've read about "The Children", and, after watching the trailer, I think this movie will do for parents and their fear of germs and sniffles what "Jaws" did for swimming in the ocean..! ;) ...

[chalkboard17]

You know, I have to look at this review as just one mans' opinion. For weeks now I've been watching the "user reviews" roll in on sites like IMDB and BoxOfficeMojo as well as professional reviews and the overall reaction to the movie seems to be something more than you've portrayed here. This movie opens in my city on Friday and I am planning on going to one of the midnight shows to "experience" it like you and others have suggested.

You say it succeeds over its only real comparison, the BWP, and you say that it does pack some scares, yet you give it a C+. Is this because you really were not satisfied with the film, or are you unfairly comparing it to something like The Exorcist or The Sixth Sense that, with a bigger budget and better acting talent, went on to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar?

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

I would never compare Paranormal Activity (or most horror films) to something like The Sixth Sense. While I didn't find The Sixth Sense all that frightening, it was incredibly engaging and moving because I really gave a damn about the characters. Not only was it nominated for best picture, it darn well should have won that year (so too should have Osmont and Collette). It may not have terrified me, but the mother/son finale makes me well up every single time. My wife and I just watched that again to commemorate its tenth anniversary, and it still holds up as an incredibly powerful motion picture. I don't care how many Happenings Shyamalan makes, I'll always be a fan of his for Sixth Sense and Unbreakable.

[CynAnne]

Can't wait to see "PA", Scott, but I must disagree with you regarding "BWP" - considering that both Ed Sanchez and Dan Myrick weren't seasoned professionals, and much of the plot was left open, deliberately, for improvisational reaction from Heather, Josh & Mike, I think they turned out a compelling story (it was supposed to be slightly boring at the beginning, to 'get you off your guard') - to prove my theory, let me relate my story on the "BWP": The weekend it opened, my sister-in-law and I went to see "BWP", and throughout the first 2/3 of the movie, the audience around us reacted typically - wisecracking and hooting at our doomed trio to just "Use the d*mn cellphone"..but after Josh disappeared, the theater quieted..after his horrible screams were heard, and the blood-soaked bundle was discovered (containing teeth pulled from the roots, not fingers - either way..ouch, times infinity), the room was quieter still. By the time Mike and Heather were running through that dilapidated house, you could almost hear pins drop around me. And, when the camera's last frames stuttered to a halt, a collective moan of "Ohhh.." rose up..we knew the fate that had befallen them now. The lights came up, and many members of the audience began grumbling about "BWP" not "..being scary.." - I had seen these same people, just a few minutes prior, drawn up in their seats and as anxious as I had been...

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

In a way you're right. I often wonder how I would have viewed Blair Witch Project without the months of hype and critical raves. In the end, it really was just a goof-off film shot for under $100,000 and starring three friends improvising a would-be narrative.

That's how I approached Paranormal Activity. Does the film live up to the hype? Absolutely not. Is it all that scary? Nope. But it's not the filmmakers' fault that their $11,000 film happened to get picked up by Paramount and then distributed during a time when Paramount had nothing else to spend money on. It's not their fault that geeks have been proclaiming this 'the scariest movie ever made'. If I was unfair at all to BWP, it was that I judged the movie against its own marketing machine. I still think it's a lousy, cheap, and dishonest film, but I don't begrudge those who were effected by it. And while Paranormal Activity is a much better film than BWP, it is still in the end a $11,000 first film shot in a single location with a single camera. By that standard, it's not too bad.

[CynAnne]

Agreed, Scott. On it's own merit, that being a spooky little cautionary tale against the perils of poking fun at eldritch legends you don't understand, "BWP" is, even after a decade, still rather effective (and I'll probably be caught watching it, late into the Halloween night..lol). Might I recommend another little yarn for your All Hallow's amusement? It's "The Collingswood Story" (2002), and it uses the conceit of 'instant messaging' and web-cams to set the story up, and it's definitely a creepy lil' story, as well. Hope you enjoy it (muahahahaha, even)... ;)