Nothing Special.

Rating: 1/10 (18 October 2009)

Films like this are always more difficult to critique, it seems. Because it is low budget and features a small production is it given a freer pass than in other circumstances? Is this what's happened here? I'm not sure. But what I think has occurred with Paranormal Activity is a somewhat unique film which thrives (stylistically) on the same elements used in previous intimate/imagination based horrors (and often imitated to poor result)...thus requiring comparison. The primary question is does this movie work? Sure, the apparent reason being simplicity, something severely lacking in modern day horror. The second question is whether or not this measures up to Blair Witch, in terms of building on or showing audiences anything new in the minimalistic style...Not really. In discussing the film's shortcomings I think it is necessary to point out certain stylistic choices which are this film's double edged sword. The major tension builder in Paranormal is the fact that they live in a common looking house. It could be anyone's home, basically. It's pristine suburbia...almost to a fault. What's wrong with this choice though is that nothing changes. As with the characters themselves there is no visual representation of evil; whether it be distortion or ugliness or age there's nothing in their house but Pier One furniture. By the fourth or fifth night the repetitive nature of; upstairs, downstairs and bedroom becomes tedious and the very simplicity that they're trying to scare us with becomes laborious. A similar problem exists with the characters. I love the fact that they were down to earth, natural, fleshed out people, but for the most part there is no transformation. What little there might be is limited by the actor's abilities and all we get is a lovable pair who's fear develops even more slowly than the spirit's attacks until the narrative just ends without much buildup. I don't mean to disparage this too much, I enjoyed it well enough, but for me there were too many missed opportunities and the overwhelming sense was that this was a polar opposite reaction to overblown violence in popular films such as Hostel and Saw...(as well as the result of some tricksey marketing via studio exec super-geniuses). I hate to incorporate the hype factor but I really don't understand the love this has gotten from most critics. I have sympathy for the filmmakers but if I'm going to be paying the same ten bucks for any given film then I don't think it's fair to put on the kid gloves just because it was low budget and cheap to make...it is was it is, and this is undeniably amateur. I found this film to be very similar to "Death of a Ghost Hunter" which was made in the same year. Yes, the acting was worse in that film but at least the story actually had depth, and for the most part the only major difference (I think) was the marketing machine behind it. This is just one of those "right place at the right time" sort of films.