Half in the Bag: Sinister and Paranormal Activity 4 |

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501374086 Stephen Grillo

Home from work today what a treat!

Don

Please don’t ever stop making these

Guest

I’ll just add that I think it means a lot that underneath the crude sardonic humor, this is coming from people who truly care about film and make it themselves as well. Keep it going – the half in the bag, the plinkett stuff, the films. One day we’ll say we were there when you guys were first starting out.

Have you considered a separate section with written reviews linked to an Amazon store or something? I’ve seen that done on other websites where if you click into a product via the website they get a cut of the amazon purchase. And if you click into them to get to amazon ANYTHING you put into your shopping cart and purchase via that session goes to the website owner be it films, camping gear, a large lcd screen tv, embarrassing sex related accessories, etc. I’ve heard it can work that way anyways. I’ve always wanted a section here where you tell us what to watch and besides, you could make a little something every time I buy useless crap from amazon.

By the way, when’s the next Pl— awwww nevermind.
- dirtygusset
  
  ” I’ve always wanted a section here where you tell us what to watch”
  you should be able to think for your self and decide what to watch.
  - Guest
    
    No dammit they must tell us!!! Tell me NOW!!! Tell me what to waaaaaaatch!!!
    
    oh btw you should be able to have like a sense of humor that enables you to understand what people are saying like a human being instead of being some sort of overly literal space alien robot.
    - Meh
      
      It’s called OCD.
      
      Obese condom devourer.
    - mvw1998
      
      I like the part where you pretend that you were being humourous
- JAJAJAJAJ
  
  “One day we’ll say we were there when you guys were first starting out.”
  
  Why would you care who was ‘there’ when they first started out? Need your hipster points that much?
  
  Just enjoy the content.
  - guest
    
    Are you some kind of moron that doesn’t know the difference between expressing encouragement and approval vs “hipster points”? Seriously? Are you like, autistic or have some sort of personality disorder that precludes understanding the meaningful content in human discourse?
    - guest
      
      I’ve been thinking about dirtygusset and JAJAJAJ’s (probably the same person’s) responses and it actually, in a microcosm, gives an illustration of why the Plinkett reviews work so well.
      
      To start out, just a simple axiom:
      
      MEANING IS A FUNCTION OF CONTEXT
      
      To use the above comments as sort of a microcosm as how this applies to the failure of the star wars prequels… and as I must assume I’m explaining to robot space aliens, I will go into Plinkett-leve detail on how this works.
      
      The initial post by Don says “Please don’t ever stop making these ”
      
      Now, from one simple phrase we can tell quite a few things. The poster is expressing that they like the previous Half in theBags – as indicated by his wish for future episodes. Certainly they wouldn’t both think the ones that already exist suck but want them to continue. The smiley face underscores the general air of friendliness to the post. Generally speaking, this is a comment meant to be supportive and encouraging to redlettermedia.
      
      Most people can understand this message even with just the rather simple, short phrase – they would function on the basis of “normalcy bias” which basically just means that they would tend to interpret information with the expectation that what normally happens is what is happening. They wouldn’t immediately jump to the conclusion that Don is a sociopath who is literally JUST saying keep making these because he gets personal enjoyment from them and wants them to continue so he can experience more pleasure from them. It’s instantly understandable to most people that within the simple phrase is a host of messages, which, going with one’s normalcy bias, most people will interpret accurately.
      
      A sociopath, psychopath, or even someone with cluster b personality disorder, as well as someone with any of a variety brain related disabilities or injuries that affect social skills very well MIGHT have trouble correctly interpreting such a simple message. This is because they lack the “normalcy bias” benchmark that aids in interpreting these messages. Instead, they implicitly assume that others do things for the same motivations as themselves. Their responses, thus give insight into the tone of their own posts as opposed to the posts they respond to.
      
      Moving on, the next post, from Guest starts with “I’ll just add that…” This immediately gives the reader a clear cue as to the context of the remainder of the post and what is going to be going on within it. They let us know they are continuing in the same vein as the original post’s general sentiment, as they want to add TO it.
      
      They first express encouragement with the various redlettermedia projects, express their appreciation of them, some well-wishes for the future. The next paragraph shows that Guest was concerned about redlettermedia having additional success and had thought about one possible way they might be able to get additional support for their projects. They include a joke-y phrase that makes light of their own suggestion, which goes with the humorous theme of the reviews and site as well as implicitly being self-depricating about the suggestion ie an admission that although they are trying to help their suggestion may ultimately turn out to be a silly or foolish one in some sense.
      
      So keeping with the general axiom/theme of this post, that meaning is a function of context, the post from Guest is in context with the post they are responding to, the reviews, the general efforts of redlettermedia etc.
      
      so when dirtygusset says “you should be able to think for your self and decide what to watch,”
      
      It fails on so many levels due to being unable to correctly percieve context:
      
      1. They completely miss the context of humor within the quote which goes along with the Plinkett humor on the site along with the tacit admission through humor that perhaps the request could turn out to be a little absurd.
      
      2. They completely miss the context that they are posting on a website primarily dedicated to movie reviews, in a response thread about a movie review yet saying just think for yourself when deciding what movie to watch
      
      3. Of all the posts to nitpick negatively in response to, they choose one whose sole intention was to be encouraging of redlettermedia’s efforts. There are something like 4 million views of the Phantom Menace review yet there are only a few hundred responses per video in the comments ie this is where the diehard fans would go, so in that sense there’s a contradiction, in that they are posting essentially in opposition to a post that was in support of the redlettermedia site they were at – and in addition per #2 their comment invalidates redlettermedia’s reason for existence
      
      …so either dirtygusset truly fails to understand the post or they understand it but want to twist its meaning. This opens up a lot of potential for public embarrassment for dirtygusset because whether they understood or not, they publicly give the appearance of not being able to understand the original post nor do they appear to be able to understand how fucked up their response is.
      
      JAJAJAJAJ chimes in with an even more autistic response
      
      “‘One day we’ll say we were there when you guys were first starting out.’
      
      [Why would you care who was 'there' when they first started out? Need your hipster points that much?]”
      
      Now, when Guest says “One day we’ll say we were there when you guys were first starting out.” what remains unspoken is implicitly understood by the reader – one day we’ll be PROUD to say we were with you when… ie guest is saying we are proud of what they’ve already done, that they are saying there will be things done in the future that we will also be proud of. It also implies that there will be more people who know about and take interest in redlettermedia in the future (else who would he say the phrase to in the future?), implying future success, the additional implication being that the person writing this post hopes for future success for redlettermedia. This is a way for guest to convey their general well-wishes and appreciation to the makers of half in the bag – we can tell this from the context – that they are adding to a previous supportive post and that they’re making a comment within a half in the bag comment section.
      
      …so like dirtygusset, JAJAJAJAJ exposes themselves to public self-embarassment by either not understanding or pretending to not understand the post they are responding to, because regardless of what prompted the post, it gives them the appearance of incomprehension. It makes them look foolish, stupid, and emotionally obtuse. Just like the characters in the Star Wars prequels, their actions don’t make sense within the context. Since meaning is a function of context and these characters never mean anything to me, I can’t ever bring myself to like them or to be interested in what happens to them.
      
      This example illustrates why the Plinkett reviews work so well. The original comment from guest is just a few sentences long, yet if you are explaining the whole thing laboriously to someone who is too cognitively challenged to immediately grasp the very simple things being said, it takes several paragraphs. Now, either due to continued incomprehension or in a desire to discredit the explainer’s points, the obvious response is that I must be crazy to carry on in such detail at such length – which of course ignores the obtuseness that necessitates that level of detail in the first place.
      
      The mental/emotional obtuseness of the prequel fanboys necessitate the same level of detail just to parry their out-of-context points. So Plinkett’s reviews end up being a tour-de-force in the illustration of the axiom that meaning is a function of context.
      
      First, plinkett shows the jarring discontinuity of context of the movie itself, that obviously the Phantom Menace is a star wars movie, therefore it exists within the context OF the star wars franchise. Next from within the movie he shows how there is a constant lack of context, conflict with context ,or inappropriate change in context that constantly destroys meaning within the film. At the end of the day, films create meaining ie if they successfully mean something TO us, we get something out of it and we like them. And we should take meaning in the broadest sense here. Not necessarily an emotional, intellectual, or sentimental point although that would certainly do, but it has to mean SOMETHING and convey it successfully to be a successful film. Star Wars prequels fail due to the weird, jarring, shifting context that kills meaning and leaves us unmoved because it simply didn’t mean anything to us – it’s also why anyone who loved the first trilogy feels betrayed, as Lucas actively attacked the meaning of the first films through the new prequels as well as modifications to the old ones. The jarring discontinuity of JAJAJ and dirtygusset’s posts are a perfect min-demostration of what destroyed star wars.
    - guest
      
      …and I’ll just add to that, that shifting or changing context CAN be used very artfully as opposed to being a no-no.
      
      For instance, in 6th Sense, we get so wrapped up in Bruce Willis’ efforts to help the kid, when the perspective “pulls back” as it were and reveals the true context, that WIllis is dead, the failure he had with the previous patient and his regrets about it, it informs everything that came before with additional meaning.
      
      Some directors go so far as to get a shot with a fisheye lens and zoom out or otherwise change perspective, giving a visual confirmation to the mental parallax that is occurring as context widens/shifts.
      
      Or for instance The Matrix… the audience is a little bit ahead of the protagonist on what is going on – Neo is not the sharpest tool in the shed – but we go with him on a journey of discovery in which the context of reality is radically altered over the course of the film.
      
      I’d add that the genius of The Matrix wasn’t merely that the character’s actions were congruent with him having to go thorough the changing context – though they were – the directors/writers/actors recognized that to be congruent doesn’t mean the protagonist has to be always right. His stupidity, inability to think fast on his feet, or cowardice can be an additional stone he carries on his back which we might sympathize with or become frustrated with and hope he overcomes – he or she can still be well-meaning yet imperfect – or learn to be well-meaning over the course of the movie. Some directors seem to take congruity in the narrowest sense and make the protagonist always right, unbeatable, etc. It’s sad that what happened in matrix 2 and 3 didn’t matter nearly as much to me as the first one but that takes us back to meaning…
    - Drain
      
      Hard to believe you typed all that shit. Biggest wall of worthless shit I’ve seen in a while. You really think people are going to read all of that? Lol?
    - kaka
      
      After reading the all shit, i finaly understood i was a space alien robot….my all life is making sense!!! ……PREPARE TO DIE FUCKERS!!!!
  - guest
    
    Stop it. You’re embarrassing us. And by us, I mean yourself.
alcatraz’s scariest ghost

I really hope you are kidding.
these are the worst movies in the whole goddamn world.

http://twitter.com/thenewloon The Loon

CUM EVERYWHERE!!!!

Don

Anyone that has extra change in their pocket, don’t give it to the neighborhood bum, give it to RLM!!!

Tony J B

please watch all the harry potters and review them as films alone.
great!! vids by the way.
educational.

http://www.facebook.com/deejaytaufiq Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

Hey, new HITB!

Anyways as a foreigner,

may i ask:

Why do horror films deserve so many sequels?

I mean, the only countries besides America that do countless horror sequels are Japan and Indonesia, and i still don’t get why there’s “Saw 20″ and “Paranormal Activity 875″. The same apply to the latter two, with stuff like “Ju-On the Remix Beginning” and “Toyol 25″

Seriously, why do they sell so well, enough to warrant countless shitty sequels?

Don

They are cheap to make, that’s it……..
http://www.facebook.com/mbrickner1 Mike Brick

The American film industry will capitalize on any film series for as long as possible. Since people don’t expect much from most horror movies, it makes sense to keep making tons of sequels: people will expect low quality from them but see the films nonetheless. Why would they see these movies even though they know the films are bad? Various reason: some people like the cheesiness, others like the violence, but most people just like to shut their brains off for two hours and be scared just for the fun of it.
Tensen01

I would say that on the whole they don’t “Deserve” them. But yes, they tend to be fairly cheap and make a good margin of profit so they keep getting cranked out. Most of us Americans also don’t see why there’s a ‘Saw 20′ either.
CancerOfTheWebzones

It has been discussed by RedLetterMedia in some review ,don’t remember which or on some other review show.The thing that is already in the public awareness is easier to sell so the obvious thing is to make sequels or to make movies about I don’t know ,Battleship or other toys.
- another “guest”
  
  What kind of an idiot downvotes comments which state the obvious truth about movie industry?
  
  It is a known fact studios will make sequels and make movies about brands already known to public because those are easier and cheaper to market and $ell than new original stuff.
  
  It’s not opinion.It’s fact.Ask any movie selling department.You idiot.
  - Guest
    
    It’s in the Star Trek the Star Trek review.
JT

Honestly it’s true of many genres like the talking animal kid movie. Hollywood is notorious for running shit into the ground. I call it “slash and burn entertainment.”

Vince

sinister was horrible

I am Guest

“Middle of the road” means IT SUCKS!

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mads-Bolding-Fenger-Poulsen/1513209391 Mads Bolding Fenger Poulsen

Well… if you only operate in hyperbole, it does. Otherwise it means “quite entertaining, but not anything great”.
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Macleod/654585243 Richard Macleod
  
  Except in this case middle of the road doesn’t mean quite entertaining at all.
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Mads-Bolding-Fenger-Poulsen/1513209391 Mads Bolding Fenger Poulsen
    
    Well, that is one point of view. Out of many, but not less credible for that.

Infusions

Mike’s laugh at Jay’s Sequel wordplay was amazing.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mads-Bolding-Fenger-Poulsen/1513209391 Mads Bolding Fenger Poulsen

It almost got the Rich Evans-level in how entertaining a laugh can be!

Dr-G0nz0

The amount of advertisment on these videos now is rife! Love watching these vids, but this advert crap is taking the piss!

silencio200

on top of that, the ad’s are way to big and block the vision and focus of the video
secondly the ad’s are Really really sad( or at least for me were) , about a bunch of Attention whores (todd on the shadows, the nostalgia chick, some ninja!?) really ad’s about attention Whores, dam they are really desperate.
so i suggest please use another system besides Blip.

ChickenWuss

Okay so people I have a medical indisposition toward jumpscares (I really do, actually, it sucks) but I really want to watch this video. Can I ask nicely if someone bolder than me could pin down exactly at what point do said loud noises occur so I can be prepared for them?

http://www.facebook.com/Panzergoob Jon Fite

You’re just going to have to skip this one dude.
- ChickenWuss
  
  Really? It’s that bad? Damn it.
- Sissy Wetpants
  
  I wish I’d skipped it. It’s not worth it to me. Any salient points or humor takes a back seat to the screamers.
  
  I had to stop watching the Phantom Menace 3D review because of the fright noise in it.
  
  Checking the comments to each video before hand to see what/where to skip is tedious. Maybe they should just stop doing it?
  
  Also, that skull with the eyes is the creepiest thing I’ve seen this Halloween season. If that had been the image that popped up, I would have closed my laptop on the spot!
Infusions

19:38 – 19:41 (Music Sting)
24:50 (Loud Laugh)
24:56 (Alarm clock)
25:28 (Loud Scream)
29:39 (Loud Noise + Image Pop up)
39:10 (Loud Noise)
43:10 (Loud Noise + Image Pop up)

I just skimmed the video so I may be missing one or two, but they’re pretty predictable since Mike and Jay are essentially making fun of it.

There are no jump scares until they start reviewing the Paranormal Activity film, but you can expect that pretty much anytime they show one of the trailers, it’ll probably have a jumpscare in it.
- ChickenWuss
  
  Thanks! You sir are one classy man.
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Rick-van-Hoof/100002579891733 Rick van Hoof
    
    Hey there, I cannot claim I have medical reasons, but I just can’t
    stand jumpscares. The contrast to calm and shocking is too great.
    Still,
    I watched this video, and I can give you advice if you realy want to
    watch it. I took Infusions advice, and I would add to the list:
    29:14 – Medium noise + internet pop up
    42:13 – Medium noise + image
    
    With that, I would add that the sounds are way more disturbing than the
    visuals (visuals are not over the top). So simple is to set you sounds
    realy low or off (24:56, 29:39, 42:14 and 43:10 are the loudest).
    
    You can say some trailer footage is jumpy, but I don’t think so, because you can expect them more. I think you can watch it, but ofcourse I don’t know your condicion, I’m just a easily scared guy.
    I Hope I helped. Good luck.

http://www.facebook.com/liam.robertson.52 Liam Robertson

I died at the Ghostbusters gag.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mads-Bolding-Fenger-Poulsen/1513209391 Mads Bolding Fenger Poulsen

You should become a ghost and haunt them, then!

smashbro49

Hey, they learned how to pronounce “guilt”. Good job.

http://profiles.google.com/charlesp2009 Charles Petrosky

It’s pronounced “goo-ilt” right?
- http://www.wiziwig.tv/ Rafael Da Silva
  
  Why don’t you look it up? Or better yet, do a baghoougle search.

Jay

It’s not saying much, but Paranormal Activity 3 is the best of the bunch. It’s hilarious. You should give it a shot

http://www.facebook.com/people/Wrenja-Czaczkes/100000276829636 Wrenja Czaczkes

Agreed, I watched it the other day and really kind of enjoyed it. It is definitely the most interesting and entertaining of the four movies. The other three can DIAF.
RedCanada

That’s because PA3 is the most formalist of the four movies, so it’s easier to believe it’s possible in its own world.

Erik

Mike’s laugh at 13:45 is the most terrifying thing in this episode

http://twitter.com/bbhaver2 bbhaver

It was Palpatineish.
- JohnWaynman
  
  More like Jennifer Garner-ish. (Don’t believe me, watch the Alias outtakes.)

James_Cobra

Great as usual guys! I liked that little Evil Dead tribute

http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Kaminski/759905343 Richard Kaminski

I think they were pretty easy on Sinister. I thought it pretty dire.
Apart from Ethan Hawke, the rest of the cast were absolutely dreadful. His wife delivered all her lines like she was in a commercial for laundry soap, and the little girl was even worse. I mean, I know she’s just a kid but jesus, she was really the best that auditioned?
Also, the young cop seemed to think he was playing Dewy from Scream. WTF were those scenes about?!
The worst aspect though was the terrible use of music during the majority of the playback of the found footage. Why did they ruin these creepy scenes with completely incongruous industrial metal music (or whatever the hell you would call that genre)? The scene is pretty much shot from EH’s POV, but this goddawful music is played over the top, actually synced to the super 8 stuff as if it is the actual soundtrack to what he is watching (eg it always starts and stops EXACTLY in time to the footage). But we know it isnt coz there is no sound to what he watches. So why use this method? Because it’s what horror movies always have and Sinister adheres to convention to the letter. But it totally breaks the spell and reminds you that you are watching a dumb horror movie. Silence would have made the scene really effective.

FORESTWHITAKER

LMAO @ him dialing the phone

http://twitter.com/Billistic Billistic

Ha, Mike and Jay don’t get that this movie is just a function for horny teenagers to go on “dates” to. They want to talk but they need an excuse for her to jump in to his arms. It’s the anticipation that they’re going to get to touch each other for a reason. With women Jay and Mike’s age you gotta use something like Seven to really scare her ass. Not some cheap startle.

CancerOfTheWebzones

Seven,really?
I think more like real life.
Stuff like”Why aren’t you making more money?” or “Where is this relationship going?” or “When are you going to move out of your moms basement?”
- http://www.facebook.com/people/Ano-Feynman-Coulter/822802590 Ano Feynman-Coulter
  
  I just assumed that Billistic meant “Seven of Nine”

Terry

When Mike started dialing, I was expecting him to punch in either too few numbers, or too many. Still funny, even if expected.

alcoholic lemur

so awesome, glad i was told to wait… y’know it would be interesting (and fucking hilarious!) to see a good fast &furious review. I just watched tokyo drift for the first time at a friends place, and…. the cuts between actual footage of drivers on roads driving and actors in a mock cab talking is… well, dumb.

playdude92

Any Jack-O-Lantern has more creativity, character and craftsmanship involved than Parnormal Activity 4.
It´s like reviewing oatmeal…

Quaker Oatburg III, Esquire

Hey eff you buddy, I love me some plain oatmeal.

http://www.facebook.com/david.moulton David Moulton

The haunted house gag is killing me! LOL

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=707535202 Chris Pendlebury

this is better than the movie

Honk

Man I hate these Paranormal actishit series. Great review and very cute ghost-girl.

Sajorij

Were all those spoilers for Sinister really necessary? I was planning on seeing it on Halloween and now I hope all your spoiler bombs were a part of some great joke. Besides that, great episode.

YourFavoriteCustomer

the ghost is so HOT!

Sully

I concur. If she’s looking for a new resident to haunt… or floor to sweep, send her my way.

Scott

This is the first time I’ve disagreed with you guys. While the sequels were essentially copies of the first one with different locations and scare tactics, I really did think the first one was pretty entertaining and at times, original. Maybe it’s because I always find ghosts, etc interesting (although I’m pretty skeptical), but I thought there were a lot of little details that just made it legitimately creepy to me (footsteps of the demon/whatever scurrying away, ouija board fire). I don’t know… to each their own I guess.

What’s funny is that I don’t find the ghost hunter TV shows entertaining at all, because it’s just a sham to me; I can’t get my mind to accept that those things are actually happening. Maybe I’m just not a believer. The Paranormal film on the other hand, I go into it knowing it’s fake and for entertainment, and that in the world that this film has established, ghosts/demons are real, and from there my imagination kicks in and builds upon the events unfolding. Yes it’s true, there isn’t much to a door slamming or footsteps, but it does give the viewer the opportunity to imagine what the hell is doing these things, why, etc.

To me that’s just a lot scarier than the majority of these flicks that come out. I do agree it lacks any real structure, but I don’t think that was it’s purpose. I do feel, however, that it does a good job establishing an atmosphere, which in my opinion plays a huge role in all of this. I personally get freaked out with overwhelming silence like the ones found in the movie (and I’m sure I’m not the only one). I agree that long period silences disrupted by loud noises are a cheap way to frighten audiences, but the first one wasn’t entirely made up of that. To me the parts with very subtle movements and noises are what creep me out the most, because they were so similar to noises you actually hear in the middle of the night. The first film built something upon that relation that many audience members had. That’s just my take anyway, and why it legitimately scared me, although I will admit the sequels were just more of the same to cash in on the name, and it’s difficult to experience the same thing that was felt in the first one.

Films like the Shining, Exorcist, etc deliver a different type of scare altogether, in my opinion, because you were drawn into the film, attached to these characters put into these horrific scenarios. That’s what makes them great. Paranormal gets a different scare out of me, putting me in situations I’ve actually been in, ie sitting in bed going “wtf was that?”, except in the film the sounds don’t go away like they do in real life. Was the first one a great film? Eh probably not, but it offered a scare that to me lingers longer than any of the big budget films like Sinister that all seem to blur together year after year.

Bloody Cactus Dildo for Man

Call Me!
Guest

Paranormal Activity is a pile of shit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

http://www.facebook.com/alex.murray.509 Alex Murray

I met these guys!

DangerousRandy

Bagoul reminds me of GooBoo, the Alien that was originally intended to run around with Indy in The Last Crusade

MrTits

Good video, but the Gangam Style was just unnecesary, everybody is fucking sick of it, don’t become the cancer of the Internet by putting that crap.

CancerOfTheWebzones

Oppa Plinkett style!!

http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Kaminski/759905343 Richard Kaminski

It wasn’t banned, it was a one-off tv stunt who’s very concept precluded it being shown more than once. It did cause a number of complaints though.

Mr_Katanga

Mr Pipes FTW

Jay

Those Universal Studios clips with Mike on the ride…best laugh I’ve had all year

http://www.facebook.com/Spike.Ghost Jean-François Martel

I loved Sinister

http://www.facebook.com/Spike.Ghost Jean-François Martel

Nice! loved the nod to Edgar Allan Poe.

http://www.facebook.com/rene.lora Rene Lora

Sinister was sooo boring and repetitive. Its just Ethan doing the same things
watches a film, stumbles around his house,
watches a film, stumbles around his house,
watches a film, stumbles around his house, but now with ghosts,
watches a film, stumbles around his house but now can see the ghosts,
watches a film, MURDERED!
Lame.

Mingy

Black baby jesus is scary now!

Heli

You guys should do a special double review of The Recovered and Feeding Frenzy.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Yungbluth/100000492345495 Jason Yungbluth

Brilliant! Give yourselves a pat on the back. You know what was good? The noises.

tehcliff

Thank you for posting a new Half in the Bag on my birthday! Mike and Jay might be frauds, but they’re entertaining frauds!

Bassbait

Someone should make a hilarious satire of Paranormal Activity style films. Like the security cameras catching a guy on the toilet, and then some toilet paper flies up to the ceiling and he freaks out and you hear him evacuate his bowels. Then you see other angles of the nearby hallways of him running, crying, with his pants down, trying to get away.

Now THAT would be entertainment!

Mark Bisone

The PA movies makes studio execs and theater-owners cum HARD. They each cost about ten bucks to make, are 90 minutes long and gross a couple 100 million worldwide.

Why do people buy tickets to see them? Because chicks jump into your arms when they hear loud noises. That’s the entire appeal of the movies. They aren’t even haunted house rides. They are “spooky noise” Halloween albums.

BunnyFooFoo

When it comes to horror movies, Mike & Jay are clearly much more interested in the “movie” as opposed to the “horror” side of things, so it’s understandable that the gimmicky concept might wear out its welcome quickly from a moviemaking standpoint. Also, I only ever saw the first Paranormal Activity because I felt like I basically got the gist of it by that point. It was definitely not a story that demanded a sequel (let alone three), so I can see how the concept might become more irritating the second, third, or fourth time around.

Still, I think they answer their own question about how PA—the first one, at least—could possibly be considered scary. I agree that it’s important to differentiate between “jump scares” and a concept that’s genuinely disturbing. Sinister might make you uneasy while watching it because Ethan Hawke stubbornly refuses to turn on the fucking lights for no good reason and things pop out at you randomly, but unless you happen to live in a house formerly occupied by a family murdered by some ancient medieval demon, then there’s nothing truly disturbing about it. PA, on the other hand, was disturbing to me.

It was disturbing for many of the same fundamental reasons as Poltergeist. As Mike points out, PA, like Poltergeist, doesn’t happen in some exotic location like a haunted castle or a spooky, abandoned mental hospital. It’s just a normal suburban house, the quintessential safe refuge, and that’s the point. Both movies take ordinary things and twist them into something horrifying. In the case of Poltergeist, it was a TV, a tree, a closet, a swimming pool, etc. In PA, it was the everyday act of sleeping in your own bed. To me, that’s a lot scarier. I don’t go to many haunted castles, but I sleep in my own bedroom in my normal suburban house every night. If you can successfully shatter the expectations of safety that the audience takes for granted in those sorts of situations, then that’s when a movie can become truly disturbing.

Of course, it’s open to debate whether PA was successful in the attempt. I’m a little surprised, though, that you would like Blair Witch Project while disliking PA, since usually people tend to level the same criticisms at both. They didn’t show anything scary; nothing really happened; the characters were just a bunch of stupid, annoying assholes; etc. When you talk about the “unraveling” depicted in BWP, though, what you’re describing is exactly the sort of shattering of safe expectations that I describe above, and I think it happens in both movies.

BWP is basically about a bunch of arrogant college students discovering, quite contrary to their expectations, that the “here there be dragons” zone exists a lot closer to civilization than they thought. They walk into a wilderness, ignoring every warning they’re given, and witness the ground collapse beneath all of their comfortable assumptions of safety.

PA is basically about two normal, affluent people discovering that they are completely helpless in the face of a totally alien threat that comes to them without reason. The arrogant boyfriend attempts to deal with the problem of the demon using all the bravado and careless assumptions that he relies on in everyday life. He denies it; he tries to bluff and challenge it; he tries to appease it; in the end, he tries to run from it. One by one, all of his tactics fail, while he ignores the warnings he’s given, and they are both destroyed for it.

I’ll also add that ghost stories are fundamentally scarier than other types of horror movies, like monster or slasher movies, because there’s an even greater sense of helplessness. If you’re being chased by a monster, it may be bigger and stronger than you, but it still has to obey certain obvious, physical rules (unless the movie is completely ludicrous). In ghost stories, on the other hand, there tends to be a lot more fuzziness and doubt about what the rules even are, so in a way you’re trying to fight blind.

DeadHooker

Well put, and you nailed what makes movies like the PA series (save for part 4, it was shit) “successful”. I think I enjoyed the PA series up to 3 for the most part. The series is shot the way it is to psychologically groom you to identify with the characters and places as they’re served to you in random slices of everyday life, average and perhaps mundane because that’s what real life normally is – no demons or ghosts or things that go bump in the night. When the out-of-the-normal events start to unfold in the everyday and normal kitchen/bedroom/livingroom, you may be taken a bit out of your comfort zone *if* you didn’t allow yourself to suspend disbelief. I sort of equate that kitchen or bedroom with my own and that makes things unnerving. I made that small mental investment and got a better experience because of it.
MJH_47

This was perfectly written. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
The only thing I would add is to argue against the assertion that the movies are nothing but jump scares. They seem to have devolved into that over the course of the sequels, but one thing I liked so much about the first movie was that all the “activity” was very methodically and deliberately paced. The door slowly moving on its own, the bedsheets fluttering, the girl silently watching her boyfriend sleep for hours on end; these are all the exact opposite of loud noises and things jumping at the camera.
The ending is of course the obvious exception, but that was tacked on by the studio since the original ending was too “boring” and would have precluded the possibility of any sequels.
Guest

I admit I was waiting for Poltergeist to be mentioned in comparison.

The “Rich White People” vibe can throw a person off of enjoyment of these movies – one difference in Poltergeist was they showed how hard the father had worked to get that house for his family, how they’d just moved in and they were new to it, just beginning to believe their life would maybe be better… you kinda sympathized a bit therefore when it was ruined for them and they eventually lost it – and they made the in-ground swimming pool scary!

I always want to know, when stuff is getting panned, what you guys would like instead. The Thing? Evil Dead 1/2/3? The Fourth Kind? Mothman Prophecies? Devil’s Backbone? Pontypool?
- http://www.facebook.com/TharosTheDragon Kyle Delaney
  
  Dude, OF COURSE they love evil dead. They’re B movie fans and aspiring filmmakers. Feeding Frenzy is practically and Evil Dead tribute.
Guest

Jump scares are not horror. PA is boring garbage.
- lobotomy jack
  
  I hear that!
http://www.facebook.com/jspider.markl Jay S. Markl

Pretty much the post I was thinking of making. I felt the first Paranormal Activity was better then the Blair Witch but they were really both similar aspects of the same concept for character degradation. I suppose what made Paranormal work for me more was the more mundane setting and the fact that you see alot more then what you see in Blair Witch. Conversely while Blair Witch showed me less it makes for a more compelling narrative in the sense that the characters are pitted more directly against the force that opposes them.

The concepts for Paranormal Activity are probably stronger overall to me then the actual execution however. It feels like at least with the second one they were simply trying to tweak things to tell the same story better. Like a more passive camera system makes more sense then having someone run around with one (but they still put hand held camera scenes in) and they also had a couple of new ideas for the haunting. Kinda amazed Jay and Mike didn’t poke at the jump cut teleportation in the second one which wrecks the series idea of realism.

I’ve seen the first three at various friends homes and while I initially suspended my disbelief for the found footage gimmick things start to fall apart pretty quickly as it goes on. For instance I liked the scene in the first movie were they research demons in general and find a story that parallels their own but doesn’t necessarily give clear answers. It seem to fit the feeling of hopelessness as the activity was increasing and becoming more violent.

As the sequels go on you get more of the odd edits and weird camera cuts and in two you had them give the demon a direct motivation “it wants the first born son” and then you even had a character postulate “maybe our grandma sold her firstborn son for money but never had a male child”. Bam you’ve sucked out any scary aspect or realism because its no longer an every family or that odd monster I thought was in my closet when I was five. Now its a very specific chain of events and the demon has specific motives and you suddenly have a weird cult.

I feel like its similar to the issues with I think it was the Devil Inside? A found footage movie having too much story or narrative for its own good. While none of the movies individually have much of anything the collective lore is sort of crushing the series. And yet the series is content to mostly repeat the same paces with every movie and not go anywhere while using its lore to drag viewers onwards.

Honestly the better deal would have been to turn it into maybe an Anthology series were each Paranormal movie had to deal with some sort of different KIND of activity or entity (while keeping the same found footage motif and the presumption that this is the “real” world). It’d make it more interesting to see different creatures of different kinds of hauntings being tackled and recorded in different ways and not always the same demon that likes to move doors and throw things off cameras. How about a hitchhicking ghost story or something?

Since they ARE building Paranormal Activity as some sort of collective series that leads somewhere though, they might as well just embrace it and have some actual forward moving protagonists in the next movie who try to summon demons or have an exorcism or something. Its actually amazing the film series hasn’t gone “meta”. Its supposed to take place in our real world as some sort of found footage the cops are letting be leaked? I dunno, at this point WE’VE seen the movies so the sequels should have characters that remember the movies too since most people have seen them. Then they’d be like “hey this is just like that movie!” and we would then have an excuse not to retred as much old ground and have something new or surprising happen.

Not expecting much though, upon hearing about their “novel” ideas of using an Xbox Kinnect I pretty much assumed this was the next Jack and Jill
http://www.facebook.com/TharosTheDragon Kyle Delaney

Dude, PA is just a way for movie studios to cheat. They spend no money and are guaranteed to make millions of dollars.
- jihad
  
  it is not cheating.
  Hollywood is called show business for a reason.
Happy Hippocrite

I second all of what BunnyFoFo said. Despite considering myself a dude quite similary to Jay and Mike in terms of movie interrests and general taste, Paranormal Activity (Part 1) scared the hell out of me. Maybe it is because beyond all rational reasoning I am not one hundred percent certain that demons might not actually exist? Anyways, it makes me glad for two reasons: 1) I was able to genuinely “enjoy” the first PA movie and 2) I may not be a complete total cynic like Mike and Jay.
- bagool
  
  Ah, the old “if you didn’t like it, you must be a cynic” routine. You realize you’re talking about the guys that gave favorable reviews to Prometheus, Cowboys and Aliens, and fucking BATTLESHIP, right? Just because someone hates something that you like doesn’t make them cynics.
http://www.facebook.com/patric.bates.1 Patric Bates

Dude, are you serious? I don’t think you really understand what makes a movie scary, which is strange considering you just wrote a freaking essay about it.

Ghost stories are fundamentally scarier than other types of horror movies because they deal with the subject of the unknown i.e. what happens after death. Honestly, who isn’t afraid or even anxious at the thought of what comes after death? You’re apparently trying to assert however that ghosts are scary because they’re better at chasing people than other monsters because they can pass through walls or whatever. Fear of the unknown is why I think a ghost movie is FAR more thrilling than your average “creature feature”. Like when you mentioned the “fuzziness and doubt” about how to fight a ghost
in a ghost movie, that ties in to the whole “fear of the unknown” factor
and adds to the tension and thrill.

But just because your movie has ghosts or other supernatural elements that deal with the unknown doesn’t mean it’s instantly going to be scary. A truly great horror movie is all in the presentation. You need atmosphere, you need a gradually heightened sense of apprehension surrounding the protagonist, and most importantly you need realistic character motivations and reactions. If the audience can’t connect with the protagonist(s) because they walk into a dark room alone calling out someone’s name after already experiencing unusual supernatural events then all the tension in the movie instantly goes out the window.

What makes movies like Paranormal Activity and its progressively worse sequels bullshit however is that they rely solely on the unbelievably predictable “jump scare” which I personally find not only distasteful but not at all entertaining. Like Mike and Jay pointed out “jump scares” aren’t actually scary, only startling. Being startled is only entertaining if it’s someone else, who’s humorous reaction to being startled is witnessed by other people for comedic purposes, such as a prank. When you’re sitting in a dark theater with no one to laugh at you for getting startled, especially when you KNOW it’s coming, it’s just fucking obnoxious.

Call me old fashioned, but I actually enjoy being scared, and I mean TRULY scared. I enjoy feeling chills crawl up my spine, I even enjoy having trouble sleeping because I was so creeped out by a well done horror movie. I remember after seeing The Ring I didn’t want to sleep in a room with a television that same night. The movie actually made me afraid of fucking television sets for christ’s sake. That movie was actually the last movie I’ve seen that legitimately scared me, and although it wasn’t perfect I felt it dealt with the three elements I mentioned earlier rather well (atmosphere, building apprehension, realistic characters/reactions), as well as having an intriguing mystery plot surrounding the origins of the ghost girl Samara. As opposed to movies like Paranormal Activity or Sinister, which simply tells the audience it’s just a demon, that wants to do demon things because it’s a demon.

And I actually fairly enjoyed The Blair Witch Project. I have no idea why anyone would group the same criticisms for Paranormal Activity with the Blair Witch, in terms of character realism at least. The Blair Witch Project was simply about 3 college kids filming a photo documentary about an old legend, but then desperately try to escape the woods when they realize their situation starts to get fucked up. In Paranormal Activity, after numerous tell tale signs that their situation is fucked up, they hardly do anything to resolve their plight besides Googling about it and calling a priest to come to their house only to shit his pants and leave. After realizing there’s obviously supernatural forces at work in their home, they make no effort to leave and head to a god damn church or whatever to get the girl exorcised. Even if people generally consider the characters in these types of movies as douchebags, I found myself relating to the characters in Blair Witch Project a little more simply because I realized I’d be doing the same thing in their situation. In essence that makes the movie much more thrilling, to me anyway.
- BunnyFooFoo
  
  The particular “fear of the unknown” that’s relevant to terror that horror movies seek to generate is the fear of what the unknown can DO, not philosophical questions about life after death. That’s the point I was making. Yes, monster movies like Alien or The Thing can still do a very good job of creating terror through atmosphere and tapping into our natural bodily fears and such, but I would argue that ghost stories have an easier job of creating a certain paranoid fear of the unknown. A monster may be hideous and scary, but it’s still just a physical creature, and barring a truly absurd story it’s pretty easy to comprehend what it can do merely by general comparison with other creatures. A ghost? Well, who knows what it can really do. You could at least imagine ways you could stop Michael Myers. How do you stop Samara?
  
  The Ring is a perfect example. All the bizarre stuff–the video, the phone call, the fly on the video screen, the water, barfing up the electrode, the hideously twisted victims, etc.–was made even more frightening, as long as you were willing to suspend your disbelief, because it wasn’t clear what it even meant, and it seemed like there was no escape. It was also a much better horror movie than Sinister because all of its disturbing imagery and seemingly random scariness actually built up into a coherent story, as compared to Sinister in which random stuff just leaped out of the dark at you for no better reason than to be arbitrarily startling.
  
  I can certainly understand Paranormal Activity not resonating with people, but how can you possibly characterize the first one (as I said, that’s the only one I’m talking about; I haven’t seen the others) as jump scares, when it’s exactly the opposite? Most of the events shown in the movie are, if anything, very understated. A door opens and closes. Strange sounds are heard. A ceiling lamp moves. A Ouija board moves and catches fire. Footsteps appear on the ground. A bedsheet moves. The girl stands motionless for hours and behaved weirdly. Yes, they become more overtly threatening and violent as the movie progresses, but the only real genuine startle is the last 30 seconds or so. The rest of it was intended to be scary more by the implications of what was happening as the situation escalated than by things leaping out in your face like a jack in the box. Whether or not you agree that it worked, those aren’t the sort of cheap scares that you describe.
  
  As for the characters, I see their attitudes as being similar in both movies. The boyfriend in PA is warned repeatedly to stop antagonizing the demon and seek outside help, and he ignores everyone because he’s afraid of admitting that he’s not in control until it’s too late and demon destroys them both (incidentally, they do make an effort to leave at the very end, even though they’re told point blank that it won’t help, but by then the demon has already grown too powerful). His behavior may be awful, but it’s not really inconceivable that some typical know-it-all asshole might act the same way. In Blair Witch Project, where the film students ignore all the warnings they’re given and wander off into the woods, and because they refuse to admit they’re not in control of the situation they maintain a pose of denial even when things start going bad until it’s too late and they’re trapped. They both seem to be stories about people being punished for their arrogance.

Otto

Does anyone else get the video extremely zoomed in? I can only see maybe the center fifth of any frame.

zero_miles_per_hour

An important thing to note is that the actual people who made Paranormal Activity don’t know why it’s scary, that CGI’d face at the end proves it.

SirGeeeO

Paranormal activity is familiar and people are habitual. I have only seen the first two, but they’re a fun movie to go to the theater and watch surrounded by a bunch of screaming idiots

nignog

I can’t believe I find the “get fucked” at the beginning so funny

RamenSempai

lol the tell-tale Plinket! Nice one guys

RamenSempai

Am I seriously the only one that noticed the Edgar Allen Poe / Tell-tale Heart vibe? lol

DERP

No, any retard could pick up on that.

112233

JAY: I’ve got it! Let’s go watch the new 007 movie!
MIKE: Jay, that’s a terrible idea. Let’s go watch all the 007 movies!

Pretty please?

Leo

Ha ha, that would be about 20 parts long. Be good though..However I would have to watch it in installments.

North

And here I thought we were gonna see the ghosts of Bambi and Plinkett’s other dead wives. Shyamalan’d!

Guest

Rich Evans didn’t kill any wives.

http://www.facebook.com/grums.grumsgrums Grums Grumsgrums

Wow, they have a shot glass from Safe House in Milwaukee! I love that place!

Clyde

40 episodes in and these keep getting better and better.

Justin Petoskey

Ah yes for a moment I forgot we lived in the real world and there are no such persons as the Ghostbusters. Thank you for pointing how stupid the paranormal movies are.

Richard Thompson

Paranormal Activity: The Startling.

~

Paranormal Activity :The yawning.

Paranormal Activity:The snorring.

Cyvaris

So if the image of Baghuul becomes itself Baghuul….does that mean Baghuul is a Weeping Angel?

guest

I swear I have the clock with that alarm! It is fuckin’ loud.

http://www.facebook.com/nicktheofficeninja Nicholas Collins

You have no idea I went to go see PA2 and when the movie was over and the screen goes black and white words come up the lady next to me goes “Ho my God!”

You would have no idea how many stupid people are out there who think these movies are real. That’s fucking scary.

http://www.facebook.com/matthew.r.barry1 Mongo

‘You’ll probably hate us by the end.’

To be honest I hated you before the video even started.

Ryan McKeon

Slipknot was never scary or even disturbing, more like Tom Six; just desperate for attention. all I thought while watching them was empathy. True horror is the guy that plays Moriarty in Sherlock, the modern-day one. I had to stop watching the show for a while once they introduced him I was so disturbed. The guys from Slipknot just mad me want to offer a hug. Heath ledger in the Dark Knight, that’s how you use makeup to frighten; you need an ideology such as chaos and a clear motive beyond trying to say “I’m really crying on the inside”.

praetorfenix86

If I have nightmares tonight it’s your guys fault, you should warn people before you show terrifying pictures of the Cosby’s.

CancerOfTheWebzones

Oppa Plinkett style!!

Opp opp opp

Oppa Plinkett style!!

mephitofthelake

Ohhhhh Mike and Jay. You entertain me so. I would love you both with mouth. Yes homo.

John Tinkleberry

Did the blood disappear from the pumpkin’s mouth when it changed to the 2SPOOKY NIGHT VISION?

Guest

But was it ever real?

DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNN

CancerOfTheWebzones

The ghost chick from Plinkett house is kinda hot.
Is she going to be a regular character?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Drain-Blut/100001687703474 Drain Blut

Send her over to my house. I’ll happily take her off your hands guys.

cb750

The reason people watch the paranormal movies is the shock stuff is sexually thrilling. Women love that.

Jean Baudrillard

Mike watches ghost shows and is at least agnostic about ghosts? That was almost as jarring as it would be find out he is a Scientologist or KKK member.

Neighborhood_Pedophile

Who cares?

Some people are just open-minded. Try it one day.
- http://twitter.com/ManaTeeRex Just Some Guy
  
  There’s a difference between being open minded and scientifically illiterate. Science isn’t subjective, there’s no shades of grey. There’s valid and invalid methodology. And the results of how experiments are run indicate things about the nature of the world. Belief in ghosts doesn’t demonstrate being open minded, it simply shows a subpar education in some of the most basic aspects of scientific methodology.
  
  I’m not saying it shows stupidity, any more than my shit grammar would suggest that I’m an idiot. But in both cases one can see evidence of blind spots in people’s education.
  - yadda yadda
    
    Just because science has not proved or disproved something it does not mean it does not exist.Maybe the “tools of the trade” are not adequate to provide any scietifically significant results.Still does not rule out the existence or the lack of so called “paranormal phenomenons”.
    It is possible there are phenomenons which get too quickly explained away by believers in the supernatural as “ghosts” or by scientists as “superstition”.Scientists are people too and people assume things.Idealy it should be objective but often it is not.It’s not some almighty thing which is perfect and omniscient.It’s not religion .
    Having said that I would still rather place my bets on scientists.Much more open minded.
  - Erec
    
    Just Some Guy,
    
    You have no understanding of the scientific method – that or you just have an arrogantly washed out opinion. The very foundation of the Scientific Method is Empiricism. If you can’t see, measure or verify it is unempirical – and therefore the Scientific Method does not apply.
    
    That is why the idea of a God is overlooked, not because it is impossible for one to exist, but rather because it is outside our ability to verify. Because we cannot scientifically verify whether or not one exists, it is beyond our ability to state as a fact – rather than as opinion or belief – whether or not a God exists.
    
    The same stance is taken towards ghosts, demons and whatever else goes bump in the night – we have no method to observe or measure, this inability suggests the idea is unempirical, unempiricism suggests we ignore it as a possible area of scientific study – hence pseudoscience. Blind spots in education indeed.
- The Once-Ler
  
  id rather try cocaine.

http://www.facebook.com/nathan.wardinski Nathan Wardinski

Kudos on the review. One of you mentioned “The Last Broadcast” preceding “The Blair Witch Project” in the found-footage genre. There are at least two other films worth mentioning: “Peeping Tom” from 1960 and “Cannibal Holocaust” from 1980. They aren’t strictly found-footage in way we would think of them today but both are important precursors. “Peeping Tom” is criminally underappreciated.

Also, your description for this video describes “Sinister” and “Paranormal Activity 4” as
flops but they aren’t. “Sinister” cost $3 million to make while “PA4” cost $5 million. (How the hell the latter was more expensive than the former is beyond me.) Even allowing for advertising costs, these films were profitable in their first weekend. That doesn’t make them good (“Sinister” was okay, “PA4″ was insultingly bad) but it does mean they were financially successful.

http://www.facebook.com/cobey.cobb Cobey Cobb

You fucking assholes!!!!! I shit

C.G.

Mike and Jay are way too talented to be interfacing with this mainstream schlock… go back to doing old B-movies or something… like Black Ninja… or maybe “The Chipmunk Adventure”… a CIA primer for children.

http://www.facebook.com/joseph.t.hunter Joseph Thomas Hunter

Seven Nights of Darkness. Ridiculously cheap, unscripted, but actually scary. I was shocked. Especially since its one of 20 different movies with the exact same premise, reality TV show shot in a haunted asylum. But this one really works. It had me on the edge of my seat for most of the movie, and laughing at myself for actually being scared by the shit happening.

http://www.facebook.com/joseph.t.hunter Joseph Thomas Hunter

Also, do not confuse it with Episode 50 or Grave Encounters. Those are both horrible, but somehow they get much better reviews on the net.

Andrew Austin

There were some legitimately creepy parts in the first Paranormal movie that weren’t jump scares. Like, when you notice that the girlfriend stops blinking during the last 1/4th of the movie.

Leo Ladenson

I’ll be fine. I’m a little startled, but I think I’ll be okay.

http://www.facebook.com/theblocksays Rory Block

LOL I was thinking the exact same thing in regards to comparing that Baghuul thing to being tormented by a Slipknot video! Was that really the best creature design they could come up with!?

Sean Adams

OMG… NEWS: FLASH:

I guess I strongly disagree with this episode of Half in the Bag on 3 counts, which include past episodes:

1. I’m willing to defend the Paranormal Activity series. Fuck yeah.
2. Scream 4 was awful, despite it’s tongue-in-cheek humor. Fuck it. Fuck. (Fuck.)
3. Prometheus was terrible. Fuck off, comments galore.

Anyway, I’m not being sarcastic about the PA series… I honestly think that the series is worth defending.

The Shining is my favorite horror movie (and even *that* movie incites debate). 0I could pretentiously list many great horror films that I feel are the best examples of horror movies, but that would be missing the point and make me look like a film-snob a-hole / producer of PA4. (Laughing outlandishly in long form.)

As RLM states, comedy and horror are perhaps the most subjective types of film, but I *think* I can do PA justice, even if people ridicule me, or call me stupid / completely stupid / completely fucking stupid.

Since the first movie, from a personal level, I’ve admitted that I’ve had no problem with people criticizing or *HATING* the PA movies. And by *HATING*, I mean, ***HATING***. As in “how the fuck could people enjoy these stupid fucking boring movies, much less ‘pay’ for them, with actual cash. I mean, you’d have to be an idiot, someone stupid, who both loves boredom and hype.”

I don’t know if calling myself an idiot holds legitimacy, but I’m starting to think that by part 4, it doesn’t matter anymore.

I think that PA3 was the pinnacle of the series’ achievement so far. (I admit, though, that citing the second sequel in a series is not the ultimate proof of quality.) Yet, I still recommend that people see PA3, as long as you didn’t absolutely despise the first two films.

Regardless, I think PA has increased in quality from 1-3. Many people think PA2 was a step down from PA1, but among people who either love or hate the series, I think it’s a wash. I preferred PA2 because I was both intrigued and surprised by how much it held back, and how it introduced the narrative. But good lord, that doesn’t matter to people who don’t care for the films.

I think *most* people (NOT ALL) who like the series beyond the original agree that PA3 is the best in the series. However, it still requires the same “does this scare you?” line of thinking. Either the home-movie shots bore you, or they bring you into the atmosphere. Personally, I’m a film buff, but the PA movies target me in a way that seriously taps into my imagination. Call me stupid, sheep-like, whatever, but they WORK for me. I’m a target. The “boring moments” don’t make me talk to my co-viewers; they make me tense up with the atmosphere, *not* with anticipating a jump-scare.

I personally think it’s a shame that Mike and Jay didn’t screen PA3, because I think it was the most creative and scary entry in the series. The scares (except the first tongue-in-cheek scare) weren’t just meaningless jump-scares… The demon purposefully scared the main characters into doing its bidding, which I thought was both creative and scary. Scaring the shit out of the parents into going to Grandma’s house was both logical and frightening.

In PA3, the actions of the demon had a clear, narrative purpose. I can’t speak for PA4 because I haven’t seen it, but this episode seemed to be focused much more on the series than part 4.

Again, I have not seen PA4 because it looks really disappointing based on the trailer, but so far, I think PA culminated with PA3. I understand that I didn’t really explain why these movies work for me, but goosh-nash-butomm-tomm, if anyone has read this far and asks me to explain, I will.

Guest