The true litmus test of most any film is whether it engages the viewer on some sort of emotional level, be that as it's unfolding on the screen or, better yet, hours, days or even longer after seeing it. I usually apply said cinematic testing to action pics and whether they make me want to go out and drive really fast after seeing them (that being a "guy" thing), but it can really be used for any genre from comedy (Are you still laughing at the jokes afterwards?), romance (Feeling romantic after seeing it?) and horror (Are you scared to be alone once you've experienced it?), among others.
The latter test should certainly apply to "Paranormal Activity," the latest low-budget horror flick to build by word of mouth and turn into something of a cultural phenomenon. Following in the obvious footsteps of "The Blair Witch Project," the film was made for next to nothing (reportedly somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000 (yes, you read that correctly) back in 2007.
After hitting some film festivals and spooking the attendees, it was purchased with the usual intent of remaking it as a big budget Hollywood horror flick, but someone along the way wisely thought it might be better (and obviously far more profitable) to just release it as is. And thus began a viral marketing campaign and midnight only screenings for select college towns, followed by the inevitable nationwide roll-out.
As conceived by writer/director Oren Peli, the plot is fairly simple. When paranormal activity begins afflicting a young woman for the third time in her life, her live-in boyfriend buys a video camera to see if he can catch any of the unusual sights and/or sounds on video. The shooting is pretty much non-stop coverage of their lives over 21 days, including lots of mundane (but occasionally fairly funny) daytime material, followed by the nighttime footage that starts small (faint sounds, a door slightly moving as the couple sleeps) and then progressively escalates until it reaches full-blown supernatural fury.
Like "Blair Witch," this is supposed to be found footage after the fact (an opening credit thanks the local police and the families of the young couple for the material), all of which -- along with non-professional actors and lack of a spooky score, state of the art special effects or any other usual big budget genre trappings -- is supposed to make it all the more scary.
Thus, considering the setting of an average home where things go bump -- and then some -- in the night, the question remains whether viewers will be spooked when they get home, crawl into bed, turn out the lights and then start hearing and/or seeing real and/or imagined things in their room. Viewer response will obviously vary wildly, but if audience reaction and later comments are any indicator, there could be some frightful nighttime hours looming ahead for some.
For yours truly, having slept on the pic (okay, not literally, but you know what I mean), I can report that there were no nightmares or even "What's that sound?" issues during the night. Yes, it undeniably has some creepy moments, and for the most part successfully works off the less is more storytelling mantra (where far more powerful viewer imagination is allowed to do most of the work).
Yet, for me, and due to seeing it with a quite responsive, verbal and occasionally shrieking till it's deafening crowd, the overall experience was more akin to going through a haunted house type attraction than a true "gets under your skin" and "burrows into your psyche" sort of disturbing cinematic experience. In other words, I had a blast watching it (at least the scary stuff) in appreciating what the filmmaker was setting up and then executing, and then listening to the crowd react to the various gotcha moments.
The screams were exactly the same as you'd hear in a Halloween based attraction and that didn't occur (with such vigorous enthusiasm) back in the day when "The Shining" and especially "The Exorcist" truly freaked out people. Those two films can still creep me out if I come across them on TV, but I doubt this one will have the same sort of scary staying power (at least for your humble reviewer).
It's not exactly fair to criticize a $15,000 movie with the same vigor as one would apply to a eight-figure pic, but I did have some quibbles. While realistic enough in a home movie sort of fashion, the acting is nothing to write home about. Then there's the bouncy camera footage that will make some viewers wish they had chosen a small boat in rough seas option over this. I know, that's supposed to add to the realism (and an average person buying a camera to record paranormal stuff at home wouldn't have the budget for a Steadicam, dolly or such), but the resultant queasiness for some will greatly outweigh the chills.
Speaking of the camera, the fact that the couple (mainly the guy, but occasionally the haunted girl) continues to grab the camera and shoot footage once things really start getting scary makes no sense and becomes a bit of a distraction (which also holds true for using just the camera's small light to illuminate the house rather than just turning on the lights).
A few simple script tweaks (they need to document potential house damage for insurance purposes, a potential exorcist needs proof before he'll intervene, they're going to sell the footage to a cable outlet to pay off their overwhelming debt, the power is out so the camera light is all they have, etc.) could have easily remedied that. And regarding said exorcist, you're telling me there's only one demonologist in all of the greater San Diego area who could be called (the one mentioned by an over-his-head psychic is reportedly out of town) to deal with this?
Then there's the overall fact that the film borrows quite heavily from "Blair Witch," both in basic gist and production & marketing. While there are obvious differences, the real fun with the predecessor was in the way it was shot, with the performers off in the woods by themselves for days, shooting their footage, and with no idea what the next day (and especially night) would bring. Building lack of sleep and barely seen scares lead to some truly freaked out actors and that came across on the screen in full force.
Here, and despite the amateurish aura of their work, the performers feel as if they're acting rather than really experiencing the scares. It's a fine distinction, but since I didn't always buy into their reactions that, coupled with the audience's over-the-top response, tempered the "realistic" experience for me.
Even so, one must give Peli kudos for crafting a film that has moments scarier than Hollywood has been able to deliver for years, and doing so on a shoestring budget. Had the filmmaker continuously stuck with the minimalistic storytelling throughout (mainly referring to the concluding and unnecessary gotcha sequence), fixed the few nagging script issues, and allowed me to see this at home by myself rather than with a highly reactive crowd, I might have truly been spooked. And that might be the case if later viewed on video (although I'd have to fast forward through the non-spooky parts as once is enough with them).
Viewed as a communal experience, and with more laughs and appreciation of the staging of the scares than I had imagined, it's far more entertaining than truly unsettling and scary, but maybe that's just me. "Paranormal Activity" rates as a 6.5 out of 10, simply for getting so much out of doing so little and, for the most part, letting one's imagination fill in the purposefully arranged blanks.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
