moviewizguy wrote: m@tt wrote: O.K. first of all, don't like Roland Emmerich movies, secondly i found REC and Ringu creepy, jumpy and chilling just like Halloween Psycho and The Exorcist which i don't think were made on big budgets either. You cannot put this or Blair Witch on par with any of those movies. Yes you saw something, board catches fire, she screams he screams she sleep walks and drags herself out of bed oh and theres a shadow on the door, there is no suspence or skill here to compared to a Hitchock film. Do you find Most Haunted or Ghost Hunters frightening? Cos it's the same kind of thing to me.
I suggest you search up the budgets of those films. The budget of The Exorcist was $12 million, excluding inflation. The budget for [Rec] was $1 million. The bigger the budget, the more you can show off the CGI and special effects. Since PA only had a mere budget of $11,000, it obviously did not have enough money to show explosions, car chases, a girl who can turn her head 360, or a girl who can walk backwards from the stairs in shocking fashion. PA used its budget wisely and showed a lot more than "Blair Witch," even though the budget for Blair Witch was around half a million.

JosephNYC wrote: I guess we did. So a few sheets moved, some powder was stepped on, big deal. Not scary to me.
Yeah, because if the budget of the film was around $250 million, you would love the movie so much now.

Well so what? half a million for Blair Witch or 11,000 for this movie, whatever the budget their both bad films imo, John Carpenter had 360,000 for Halloween and 100,000 for Assualt On Precinct 13, Oren Peli is no Carpenter, do you seriously think a bigger budget would have made this turd any better?

Matt Stilwell wrote: No, he's normal. Paranormal Activity is not scary. Horror movies are only scary if they could actually happen. Like my previous example, Halloween. A guy with a mask going around killing people. That's actually happened before. Jason, aside from the supernatural aspects, is another guy in a mask killing people. A Nightmare On Elm Street isn't scary because demons can't go into your dreams and kill you. The Colony (a John Ritter movie) is another scary movie. It's about a gated community with a homeowner's association that kills you if you don't follow the rules. THAT could actually happen. Ghosts flying in and out of your house freaking you out, not so much.

Neither argument is viable, considering the topic is entirely relative.

Different things scare different people, so there's no true "what's scary," or "what's not scary," there's only "what scares them," and "what doesn't scare them."

m@tt wrote: Well so what? half a million for Blair Witch or 11,000 for this movie, whatever the budget their both bad films imo, John Carpenter had 360,000 for Halloween and 100,000 for Assualt On Precinct 13, Oren Peli is no Carpenter, do you seriously think a bigger budget would have made this turd any better?
The films you have listed are completely different films from the film being discussed now. This is a camcorder-like movie. Halloween and Assault on Precinct 13 was told as a narrative fashion.

m@tt wrote: I get the feeling certain people believe this sort of b*****ks actually goes on.

Some jackasses at my school are convinced that it's real footage. Because they'd bring the dead cast back to re-film the ending. And allow footage of people actually dying to be released in theaters. No, that makes complete sense.

Very fun film.

Wow, apparently it was in my imagination, but I thought I'd already mentioned that what's scary and what's not scary is relative, and any argument over it is idiotic, primarily because you're bickering over an answer that doesn't exist.

Matt Stilwell wrote: Matt Clipp wrote: Scariest movie I've ever seen. I've always wondered what goes in on my house while I'm asleep, and this film has forced that thought out of my head. I saw this 3 times in theaters and loved it each time. Can't wait to watch it on DVD (though it will never top the 1st time experiencing it in theaters).

You thought that this was scary ? You must not watch a lot of movies. This was in no way, shape, or form scary. The only movies that are scary are the ones about stuff that could actually happen.

Matt, chill out. What's scary to people is entirely subjective. If you find things that could "actually happen" scary, then good. Conversely, I find things that are entirely unnatural the most frightening. I like buying into a film's conceit and getting carried away with it. I like taking the ride that the film's directors meant to put me on, and that's where I get my fun out of movies. Does that make me a good judge of what's good and what's not? Probably not, as I watch a lot of movies and wind up liking a modest amount of what other people would deem as "festering t*rds" (I take a lot of sh*t from my wife for loving "Dead and Buried", Disney's "The Black Hole", "Gleaming the Cube", "Basket Case" and "Jack*ss: The Movie" as much as I do).

Your parents did a good job with you, and I mean that sincerely. There are parents who never teach their children the difference between fact and fiction, and it seems that you have your feet planted firmly on the ground. However, that's the basis for YOUR personal rubric as to what you find scary, and I can appreciate that.

Like I said before, I like being taken on the ride that a film's creators intend. "Paranormal Activity" was one such ride that I enjoyed. I grew up loving haunted house and ghost stories, and "Paranormal Activity" was a chance to see some of those stories brought to life and in such a fashion that I'm willing to buy into it. One of the reasons people like this is that they're willing to suspend disbelief and enjoy the movie on its own terms and merits, not their own. "Paranormal Activity" actually gave me nightmares because of several things I found to be extremely nerve-wracking about that movie. And I enjoy that to a certain extent. And while the reality-based scariness that you claim is the only true scariness has its place, there are places as well for things you don't find scary. I mean, it's as subjective as one person's fear of heights and another person's fear of spiders. You cannot claim that the only things that can possibly be scary are that those which could actually happen. Other people find different things scary as well, and their claim to that is no more true or false than yours.

So chill out, be well, and I hope you had a good Thanksgiving (if you celebrate it, that is).
RW

Worst Nightmare wrote: Hated Blair Witch and comparisons as well as the trailer have pushed me away from this...

And I think I am quite broadminded.

People should also respect others opinion rather than call them names....

Agreed. Though I may have been one of the name-callers, I can't remember.

But, whatever the case, yes--I agree. About the people being dicks, I mean.


I quite liked the movie.

Matt Stilwell wrote: Mr. Myers wrote: This is one of the most scariest movies in years, very  effective, not felt before so afraid not since "The Exorcist"
Definitely this is a MUST BUY.

Scary ? Really ? If anyone was scared by this c**p, they probably get scared if a feather falls on the ground....which is infinately more scary than Paranormal.

Stilwell, do you exist solely for the purpose of purpose of arguing over something so idiotic? Really, first it was annoying, but now it's just sad. Do you ever do anything else? Maybe you should try eating and sleeping every once in a while.

Everyone who hated this either a) doesnt believe in the paranormal and/or b) needs their horror movies to bombard them with loud music, and over the top gore and violence that screams "this is where you get scared". Stuff that is unseen and plays with your mind is far more frightening. This was a great film.