Rank the Activity of this Paranormal riff..

[ShadowDog]

I think that last ending you described is better and more fits the tone of the movie.  But I don't like the knife crap, personally.  A knife is so ordinary.  She's a fucking demon, man.  Don't tell us how you killed the douche, you just did.  A knife brings it back to reality and that's not good at that point.  So in that sense the theater ending is better.

Stir of Echoes was one of the only movies that has EVER left me with that creeped out uneasy feeling, where I ended up afraid to sit alone in a room with a small lamp on.  Saw it in the theatre and immediately got it on DVD when it came out.  Even the menu leaves me weirded out.

Yeah, that was another creepy one.  At one point when he's in his trance or whatever and he's in a chair that rises up I was all like "holy crap that's scary."  LMFAO  I'm describing it badly because it's been years but it was creepy.

[TheUnabeefer]

Yeah ANY of the 3 alternate endings would have been better than what they went with IMHO.  I can just hear the director for the bad theatrical ending:  "Okay, now act like an animal... now smell him.  Okay look up and pretend to act creepy and possessed... yeah, I guess that'll do.  Now attack the camera!!"

[ShadowDog]

Oh, so she was smelling him?  I was wondering what the hell that was all about.

[mrgray]

I joined the Round Table specifically to address this Rifftrax.

Poor.  A few people have pointed out, and I totally agree, that most of the trax is spent on repeated complaints that the movie's boring.  And not even funny complaints.  It comes off as whining, not amusing critique, which is the great thing about Rifftrax.

This felt, to me, like an extension of their Cloverfield Rifftrax, which also consisted entirely too much of the guys basically bitching about the "home video" technique.  But I didn't feel like the whining overtook the funny in Cloverfield, whereas here it definitely did.

I think the guys genuinely hate the home video technique and that has resulted in a spiteful Rifftrax instead of a funny one.  For as awful as Transformers is and as much as we all despise Battlefield Earth, those Rifftrax are fun.  This was not fun.

To be fair/up-front, I really enjoy Paranormal Activity and find that the complaints of boredom are largely ADD-inspired.  That or none of you has ever watched a horror movie.  Paranormal Activity IS slow, but it's a deliberate pace that I think works well to build tension until the last couple of incidents.  I really don't know what you people were expecting given the description in reviews or the footage in trailers.  If you want to watch a TRULY disappointing horror movie that moves at a snail's pace, try House of the Devil.  That one's slow, boring, AND pretentious.  "ooh, I can recreate the 80s".  Who cares?

[Thrifty]

To be fair/up-front, I really enjoy Paranormal Activity and find that the complaints of boredom are largely ADD-inspired.  That or none of you has ever watched a horror movie.  Paranormal Activity IS slow, but it's a deliberate pace that I think works well to build tension until the last couple of incidents.  I really don't know what you people were expecting given the description in reviews or the footage in trailers.

I really had no expectations, because I wasn't familiar with this movie beyond the point of knowing of its existence.

You're right in that slow builds tension, but I think they overdid it, then jump rapidly into brief spikes of action around the last 15 minutes.  Katie getting dragged out of bed was cool, and her screaming off camera had a creepy vibe to it, and the part where she throws Micah's body at the camera  made my heart jump because the boring pace lulled me in to a false sense of security. 

Still, I think it was too little too late.  The rest of the movie up to that last 15 minutes seem to run this cycle:

Katie: "Micah, don't do that!  You'll piss off the demon!"
Micah: "Chill out!" *does something anyway*
Katie: "GOD DAMNIT I TOLD YOU NOT TO DO THAT!"
Micah: "Woah babe.  Chill out.  Why are you so angry?"

I definitely agree with you about the riff.  This is easily the 2nd worse riff they've ever done.  There were some good jokes, but they were eclipsed by the constant complaining that comprised the rest of the track.

[LucasM]

What the hell was that crap?    I have had scarier bowls of oatmeal.........

I thought you were talking about a bowel movement for a second there..

That would have been scarier.

Really, what was the test audience screaming at?

The realization that they paid to see it?


For me, I will refrain from voting until I've seen it a second time, IF I can even sit through it a second time (I made it a whopping 10 minutes through the second attempt at watching Drag Me to Hell before I gave up on the idea of ever watching that film/RiffTrax again).

When I watched Paranormal Activity, I came close to ShadowDog in that, because the film was so boring, I started to reach for the remote to fast forward to something - anything - that might happen, but it registered it was a RiffTrax before I did.  Then I actually got a little angry at the fact that I 'had' to sit through that pile of shit (having paid a total of $14 for film and RiffTrax).

I did think that far too much of the comments were simply complaining about the boredom... yes, I was bored, I don't need a paid commentator to remind me (again, and again, and again) of how horrendous the film they 'made' me buy is.  I cannot remember anything that I laughed out loud at in the commentary, but I was so irritated with the film itself, I'm not sure if that was because I missed comments, or if there simply was nothing there that would have seemed humorous to me.  (Tho I was amused enough by Kevin's long dialogue simulation to smile for a bit, after a while it only reminded me of the film itself.)

I had no expectations for this film because I'd only seen the TV ads for the release of the DVD (which apparently, in its 30 seconds, had every bit of action from the film in it).  And 'suspense' is built by a film 'leading up' to something and building it with what happens, this was long stretches of nothing with the occasional 'bump in the night' noise or 'gotcha' moment, none of which related to one-another or built off each other.  The ONLY thing in the film that I thought was marginally interesting was the footprints in talc.  But they let that go as just 'another event' instead of building on it to give an idea what might have been beyond the hooves.

I agree that the third ending (the one RoninFox mentioned he saw) would have been far better than either on the DVD even as derivative as it was, but as others mentioned, it was way too little, way too late regardless.  There was nothing to make me care about either of the characters (as a matter of fact, I wanted desperately to get away from both of them), and so I didn't care in the slightest that anything was happening to them.  That, of course, heightened the boredom and irritation at the film.  Hell, I was pleased to see the ending simply because it was the ending.

[stansimpson]

I will refrain from voting until I've seen it a second time, IF I can even sit through it a second time (I made it a whopping 10 minutes through the second attempt at watching Drag Me to Hell before I gave up on the idea of ever watching that film/RiffTrax again).

Wow.  Glad to know I'm not the only one is in the exact same boat there.

I agree that the third ending (the one RoninFox mentioned he saw) would have been far better than either on the DVD even as derivative as it was, but as others mentioned, it was way too little, way too late regardless.

Just read RoninFox's three endings.  I saw the first and third he mentioned.  Didn't see the DVD one.  What he didn't mention about the 3rd version was...
That Kate is huddled at the foot of the bed, rocking in a post-traumatic motion, for what seemed like days.  I lost track of the time.  But I remember being surprised about the sun setting and rising.  I like the theatrical version better because this third version felt like nothing ever truly did happen.  With the theatrical, at least it delivered the biggest scare of the whole movie.

[mrgray]

See, I think if you go into a Rifftrax without having watched the movie they're riffing, you're kind of asking for disappointment/aggravation.  I've only ever watched 3 Rifftrax without a clean version first: Glitter, Crossroads, and The Happening.  And all three of those trax are hilarious.  I would never say that Glitter is a great film, but you guys whine more than Lucy and Ethel stomping on grapes.  Glitter: it's bad.  There, see?  No need to go on for paragraphs of hyperbolic vitriol.

Unlike Batman & Robin or Battlefield Earth, there isn't a 95% agreement on Paranormal Activity, either.  A great many people really like the movie.  So for the guys and some of you here to act like it's the worst thing ever put to film is highly ridiculous.  It is flawed, definitely.  Micah is a colossal douche.  The pace, while deliberate, is admittedly too slow at times, particularly in the beginning.  But the good FAR outweighs the bad.  Especially in contrast with trash masquerading as horror like the Saw films, anything by Eli "Full of Myself Beyond Reckoning" Roth, Rob Zombie's Hillbillyween, etc.

I also notice that a couple of you are complaining about Drag Me to Hell.  Okay, if you disliked both Paranormal and Drag Me, then clearly and unequivocably you either A) hate horror as a genre or B) have the nitpickiest taste in horror of anyone I've ever encountered.  Drag Me to Hell was AMAZING.  One of the best horror movies in the last 5 years, possibly 10.  I don't think you could find a horror aficianado website around that would say otherwise.  That ending shot, which someone complained about earlier, is fan-freaking-tastic.  One of the best parts of a great movie.

I had no expectations for this film because I'd only seen the TV ads for the release of the DVD (which apparently, in its 30 seconds, had every bit of action from the film in it).  And 'suspense' is built by a film 'leading up' to something and building it with what happens, this was long stretches of nothing with the occasional 'bump in the night' noise or 'gotcha' moment, none of which related to one-another or built off each other.  The ONLY thing in the film that I thought was marginally interesting was the footprints in talc.  But they let that go as just 'another event' instead of building on it to give an idea what might have been beyond the hooves.

Well, considering that the Rifftrax guys talked over much of the audio, I guess it's hard to tell how the suspense was built.  Did you watch the movie without Rifftrax?  If you had, maybe you would've caught a few of these fun audio moments.  It does lead up to something.  You learn early on that it's likely a demon.  You get the Katie revelation of the picture, which proves that it's the same demon that has been stalking her all her life and likely caused the burning down of her childhood home.  You get the ouija board stuff.  The escalation from simple footsteps to booming stomps.  The escalation from moving keys to smashing a picture.  It all DOES escalate and it all DOES lead up to something.  I liked the baby-steps approach to the reveal as opposed to 5 minutes in and we get a CGI demon that would embarrass the TV show Angel.

I think a lot of what happened with this movie is self-fulfilling prophecy.  Some people were so determined to hate it that they didn't even give it a chance.  And that seems like some of you here.  You WANTED to hate it so you just did.  Or like Bob, who apparently has such specific horror triggers that The Ring gets a big "meh" and before that it was The Shining.  Seriously?  What in the name of the Necronomicon are your standards?

[MightyJack]

^Gee I really like the way you rip other peoples taste in film.

I thought Paranormal was a hackneyed turd, you don't - different strokes. Period. (and yes, I watched it unriffed. And no, I didn't want to hate it before hand). Kevin sums up my thoughts perfectly...

"They've officially taken the activity out of Paranormal Activity"

[mrgray]

^Gee I really like the way you rip other peoples taste in film.

I thought Paranormal was a hackneyed turd, you don't - different strokes. Period. (and yes, I watched it unriffed. And no, I didn't want to hate it before hand). Kevin sums up my thoughts perfectly...

"They've officially taken the activity out of Paranormal Activity"

I didn't rip anyone's taste in film.  I said that if you hate both films, then you either don't like horror as a genre or you have very specific standards for the genre.  That's not ripping anyone's taste.  I might have said it more hyperbolically than necessary, but it wasn't like I said, "MovieGuy33, you are teh suk and you have no taste."

If you're going to engage using words like "hackneyed", use them correctly.  "Hackneyed" implies stale or overused.  What was stale or overused in the film?  Demonic possession has been done quite a bit, true, but not using the home video technique.  The home video technique has been used a few times to varying effect, but the closest I can think of to P.A. was Blair Witch.  So no, not really stale or overused.

And again, like I've said in Drag Me and in this forum, when you are in a thread like this wherein people say they want to discuss the relative merits of a film but just dump bile on it, how can you say "different strokes"?  That's my feeling on the matter, as well, but I think it's unfair for everyone to gangpile on a movie that, again, was very well-received by a majority of the people who saw it.  You want to make jokes about how bad it was, great.  But "hackneyed turd" isn't funny or clever.  Nor was this Rifftrax.

[ShadowDog]

See, I think if you go into a Rifftrax without having watched the movie they're riffing, you're kind of asking for disappointment/aggravation. 

Not for me!  I've never seen any of these following films unriffed.  I'm including two grades with each title, how good I thought the movie was and how good I thought the riff was, the higher the number the more I enjoyed it:

Paranormal Activity  1 / 10
Drag Me To Hell  3 / 9
Maniac 2 / 10
Transformers 2   5 / 8
Fast & Furious  5 / 9
Voodoo Man  4 / 8
Planet of Dinosaurs  3 / 9
Twilight  3 / 10
The Happening 7 / 9
Cloverfield  6 / 10
Beowulf  9 / 9
Transformers  5 / 9

This whole idea of having to watch a movie unriffed first is silly to me because that's not how most of us got into this whole genre in the first place, was it?  Those of us who started with watching MST3K, lemme ask you this.  When a new episode of MST3K came on, did you rush out to some obscure video store and find a copy of the movie they were doing before you watched the episode?  Did you refuse to watch any MST3K episode featuring a movie you hadn't previously seen before?  Fuck NO you didn't!  Do you know how many of the 200+ MST3K riffed movies I'd coincidentally seen before watching them riffed?  1.  That's it, 1 single movie.  Laser Blast.  I hadn't seen any of the other movies before the guys riffed them, and that series was funny as hell and it took nothing away from the experience.

So after 10 years of that and over 200 episodes, I don't see why now, all of the sudden, it's necessary to watch a movie before watching the Rifftrax of it.  Now, do some of you make it a point to watch the movie unriffed first?  Sure, and that's fine.  I'm not knocking you.  I'm just saying it's not necessary for me to enjoy the riff.

[jojoe55]

This riff was decent but not their best efforts.  I can't blame them though, because nothing happens in this movie.  There's not much to go on.  I tried watching the movie by itself but after ten minutes I couldn't take it.  I mean my home movies are more intriguing then this 'movie'.  The fact that this movie was a success baffles me beyond belief.  Truly terrible.  But every one has their own opinions and people's tastes differ, as for me I'd rather get kicked square in the nuts then ever have to watch this movie with out rifftrax.

[MightyJack]

^Gee I really like the way you rip other peoples taste in film.

I thought Paranormal was a hackneyed turd, you don't - different strokes. Period. (and yes, I watched it unriffed. And no, I didn't want to hate it before hand). Kevin sums up my thoughts perfectly...

"They've officially taken the activity out of Paranormal Activity"

I didn't rip anyone's taste in film.  I said that if you hate both films, then you either don't like horror as a genre or you have very specific standards for the genre.  That's not ripping anyone's taste.  I might have said it more hyperbolically than necessary, but it wasn't like I said, "MovieGuy33, you are teh suk and you have no taste."

If you're going to engage using words like "hackneyed", use them correctly.  "Hackneyed" implies stale or overused.  What was stale or overused in the film?  Demonic possession has been done quite a bit, true, but not using the home video technique.  The home video technique has been used a few times to varying effect, but the closest I can think of to P.A. was Blair Witch.  So no, not really stale or overused.

And again, like I've said in Drag Me and in this forum, when you are in a thread like this wherein people say they want to discuss the relative merits of a film but just dump bile on it, how can you say "different strokes"?  That's my feeling on the matter, as well, but I think it's unfair for everyone to gangpile on a movie that, again, was very well-received by a majority of the people who saw it.  You want to make jokes about how bad it was, great.  But "hackneyed turd" isn't funny or clever.  Nor was this Rifftrax.

Your words...

"So for the guys and some of you here to act like it's the worst thing ever put to film is highly ridiculous."

That's ripping on people taste in film. And we who hate it are not being "highly ridiculous", we just have a different opinion. Plus you spend a lot of time talking about our reactions in your posts and making assumptions about those of us who dislike it (I like many horror movies, I don't like this one)

Also I wasn't trying to be funny, it is a hackneyed turd... it's basically a stale, 'bump in the night' tale... So yes - hackneyed, over done, seen it before, trite... etc.

I could care less if you want to defend the film. Go ahead on, but do so without telling people they are highly ridiculous. That's personally insulting.

[mrgray]

See, I think if you go into a Rifftrax without having watched the movie they're riffing, you're kind of asking for disappointment/aggravation. 

Not for me!  I've never seen any of these following films unriffed.  I'm including two grades with each title, how good I thought the movie was and how good I thought the riff was, the higher the number the more I enjoyed it:

Paranormal Activity  1 / 10
Drag Me To Hell  3 / 9
Maniac 2 / 10
Transformers 2   5 / 8
Fast & Furious  5 / 9
Voodoo Man  4 / 8
Planet of Dinosaurs  3 / 9
Twilight  3 / 10
The Happening 7 / 9
Cloverfield  6 / 10
Beowulf  9 / 9
Transformers  5 / 9

This whole idea of having to watch a movie unriffed first is silly to me because that's not how most of us got into this whole genre in the first place, was it?  Those of us who started with watching MST3K, lemme ask you this.  When a new episode of MST3K came on, did you rush out to some obscure video store and find a copy of the movie they were doing before you watched the episode?  Did you refuse to watch any MST3K episode featuring a movie you hadn't previously seen before?  Fuck NO you didn't!  Do you know how many of the 200+ MST3K riffed movies I'd coincidentally seen before watching them riffed?  1.  That's it, 1 single movie.  Laser Blast.  I hadn't seen any of the other movies before the guys riffed them, and that series was funny as hell and it took nothing away from the experience.

So after 10 years of that and over 200 episodes, I don't see why now, all of the sudden, it's necessary to watch a movie before watching the Rifftrax of it.  Now, do some of you make it a point to watch the movie unriffed first?  Sure, and that's fine.  I'm not knocking you.  I'm just saying it's not necessary for me to enjoy the riff.

I'm not saying that it's necessary to watch the movie to appreciate the Rifftrax.  I'm saying that it's necessary to watch the movie to appreciate... the movie.  This is especially true with Paranormal Activity, which is nigh-impossible to view with any kind of objectivity when the guys chime in every minute to talk about how boring it is.  And my objection about these specific Paranormal Activity topics (What did we learn and Rank this) is that they present the option of a dialogue about the movie when really all they are is a bunch of people ragging on it in a way that's mostly unfunny.  Additionally, I've hopped in here to defend the movie at least a little and have found very few open minds.  It's mostly "let's hate this thing".  I'm in the minority here and that's okay by me, but let me speak my piece for crying out loud.  And no offense intended here, Shadowdog, but I think if you're judging a movie having ONLY watched it with Rifftrax, your critique is far from objective.

Also, when I said that watching a rifftrax before you watch a movie leads to disappointment, I meant that buying a DVD solely under the assumption that the Rifftrax will make it worth your purchase leads to the disappointment/aggravation.  Renting is the better idea, then if you really like the rifftrax AND the movie you've spent your money wisely.

[mrgray]

Your words...

"So for the guys and some of you here to act like it's the worst thing ever put to film is highly ridiculous."

That's ripping on people taste in film. And we who hate it are not being "highly ridiculous", we just have a different opinion. Plus you spend a lot of time talking about our reactions in your posts and making assumptions about those of us who dislike it (I like many horror movies, I don't like this one)

Also I wasn't trying to be funny, it is a hackneyed turd... it's basically a stale, 'bump in the night' tale... So yes - hackneyed, over done, seen it before, trite... etc.

I could care less if you want to defend the film. Go ahead on, but do so without telling people they are highly ridiculous. That's personally insulting.

"act like it's worst thing ever put to film" does not = "we who hate it".  Using hyperbolic vitriol on the order of foaming at the mouth and falling over backwards to make barely cogent arguments consisting mostly of "it was boring" or "micah's a douche" is highly ridiculous.  If you want to make a case for why the movie fails, make a case.  I can respect that.  You think it's hackneyed.  Okay, that's not highly ridiculous.  You made a statement, you didn't go on for multiple paragraphs.  See, this was my problem with the Rifftrax.  It was mostly the same complaint.  Or joke, if you want to call that humor.  "this is boring."  Yeah, okay, I get that you're bored.  Move along to a new criticism, please.

And how am I supposed to address your arguments against the movie if I don't reference your reactions?  I made an obviously hyperbolic statement that if you hate this movie AND Drag Me to Hell with equal fervor, then you aren't a horror movie fan.  Now obviously that's not the case because I'm SURE there are some horror movie fans who don't like either.  I think they're the vast minority, but statistically that's gotta happen.  Where are you reading me as "ripping on" anyone?  The last time I checked, calling someone's hyperbole "ridiculous" wasn't particularly insulting.  Hyperbole is almost always ridiculous.  And I'm saying that using it to decry this movie is ridiculous.  If you hate it so much that you have to make these grandiose statements about how bad it is, then you're acting ridiculous.  Dislike it, rag on it, fine.  But getting so... worked up over it?  I admit, I get worked up defending it.  That's mostly because I feel like I have to be a little grandiose since mine is the incredibly minority voice.  But hey, maybe in the face of overwhelming critical praise for this film you feel the same need to get grandiose.  That's cool.  Just don't act like I'm the bad guy here.

As for the "bump in the night" criticism, I again have to go to the "what are your standards?" question.  You say you like horror movies.  What horror movie DOESN'T rely on some "bump in the night" for its effectiveness?  What do you consider "good" horror movies and how do they differ from Paranormal Activity?  See, if you want to say, "meh, this isn't all that great", then I can roll with it.  But if you want to call something a "hackneyed turd", well... I expect more of a cogent argument.  "hackneyed turd" is about as hackneyed an argument as you can make.