Rank the Activity of this Paranormal riff..

[MightyJack]

Fine professor, you win. Happy now?

I don't wish to write a treatise on the film, my sentence sums it up (It's stale and it's smelly). I'm sorry If that's not "cogent" enough for you.

[LucasM]

[mrgray quoting me]

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 caught the audio 'cues' for the plot.  They didn't make the slightest difference.

It is impossible to build suspense if you don't care about the characters enough to stick around.  He was a complete egotistical asshole, she was a sniveling punching bag who put up with him endangering their lives with her reacting with little more than the occasional whining.  If I hadn't paid what I did for the film and RiffTrax, I wouldn't have spent 10 seconds with either of them.  You can't build suspense unless the audience cares about the people, or unless the audience wants to be made to feel suspense despite all reasons to the contrary.

For suspense, look at most any Hitchcock film.  You tend to care about at least one or two characters because some length of time is spent on characterization, and the characters aren't superficial assholes.  And things tend to 'happen'.  And the films 'work' at building suspense.  None of those key elements are present in this film.

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.

.

I've bought nearly all the RiffTraxed movies prior to seeing/listening to the RiffTrax.  This, Drag Me to Hell, Troll2, and Memento are some of the only ones that I've regretted, as I'll never watch/listen to them again, mostly because I can't tolerate sitting through the movie again.  [Since you said in a more recent post "if you hate this movie AND Drag Me to Hell with equal fervor...", just to clarify: in order of how I've disliked those four I mention, it is Troll2 most despised, This Film is a very close second, further down is Memento, and then Drag Me to Hell being the more tolerable of the ones I can't stand.  Just so you know they aren't 'equal' to me.]  Back to what I was saying before... That's four out of over 100 films that have been disappointments to the point I won't watch them again.  But two of those came in very short succession, which is why I was saying maybe I ought to be more cautious (for a while).

As far as the 'building' of plot points: they may have gone from a footstep, to a thud, etc., but to wait over 5-10 minutes between events is not suspense, it is torture, and - as Conor and I think Kevin said so eloquently - is not a "movie".  If you count the amount of time that things are inactive on screen (barring the movement of the timeclock on the videocamera and people turning over in their sleep), this film might top out at 10-15 minutes.  I'd be very surprised if it reached 30.  Again: that isn't a "movie" that is a "stationary".

As I said elsewhere, I was reaching for the remote to fast forward, having forgotten that MK&B were riffing it; in other words: the riffing made SUCH a small difference to my viewing 'appreciation' of the film I barely noticed it was there and was reacting to the movie as the movie.  I also heard the dialogue, as I focus on that instead of a riff if they occur simultaneously.  So I didn't miss any plot points you mention (or others), they simply weren't enough to fill the alloted time or demands of advancing the film enough to warrant 90 minutes of screen time.

And, like ShadowDog said, some of the films that I would have least liked watched unriffed are very high on my list of enjoyed RiffTraxed films (I thought Maniac was quite a funny riffing but under no circumstances could I sit through it unriffed).  The ones I watch most frequently tend to be films I enjoy more for their own merits, however out of all of those that I 'enjoy more for their own merits' there is still only one I would watch again unriffed.

Oh, and with your criteria "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".  If you expect us to rip the film in this thread using humor, that then requires that you defend it in a way that is funny.  Otherwise, that is simply an unrealistic expectation on your part.

[Piobman]

You guys are funny....

I though the riff was awesome.

I felt the movie (un-riffed) was nothing but a marketing gimmick with a few cheap scares. Its not the worst thing I've ever seen... but its not worthy of any of the hype its been getting by some people either. I've seen more plot from my own personal home movies.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

Flame on brothers!

[LucasM]

You guys are funny....

I though the riff was awesome.

I felt the movie (un-riffed) was nothing but a marketing gimmick with a few cheap scares. Its not the worst thing I've ever seen... but its not worthy of any of the hype its been getting by some people either. I've seen more plot from my own personal home movies.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

Flame on brothers!

Oh, if only I could be this succinct! 

[MightyJack]

^I've heard it said that G.K Chesterton could say more in one sentence than most people could with a full chapter. It''s an admirable talent.

But I must add, I'm not interesting in flaming... at least not on a silly movie. If I'm going to flame-on it's going to be over something important to the fabic of our very existence. Like whether Mike or Joel was the better MST host. 

[stansimpson]

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.

I am not a fan of horror movies.  Good call.  

Haven't seen the movie RT'd (yet), but I'll hafta agree on a nugget of the self-fulfilling prophecy comment.  You can't expect a movie that relies 100% on bump-in-the-dark spookiness to retain any creepiness while three guys provide non-stop hilarity from beginning to end throughout it all (well... maybe you can; I haven't met the Oompa-Loompa who could do it).


EDIT:  Mike FTW, George!!!  MIKE FTW!!!!1one1@!11

[Thrifty]

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.

Or c) Drag Me to Hell was a terrible movie that relied on the same horror cliches; repeated "something weird happens but then it turns out to have been a dream" incidents and the "surprise twist" ending that any idiot could see from a mile away.  If ANYONE aside from Sam Raimi had directed it, it would have been regarded as the junk it is and accordingly thrown in the heap with all the other critically panned horror movies.  Having directed those Evil Dead movies, Raimi gets a special pass.  Any horror that looks stupid is excused as being a parody rather than incompetent film-making.

I don't hate horror as a genre.  I enjoyed the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and the Saw series, and the Hostel movies.  The only genre I hate as a genre is the mafia genre.  I also hate fanboys who insist that I am objectively in the wrong for hating their beloved movie.

Also, I watched both movies unriffed before watching the riff.  I don't watch a lot of riffs that way, but a handful I do.

[Thrifty]

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?

Also wrong.  I started this movie with no expectations.  I knew of its existence, but not much else.  When the riff was announced, I was like "Hmmm.  That's a different step than they usually take.  Paranormal Activity... that's the movie my mom wanted to see a few months ago but couldn't find a theater playing it."  I actually went into it expecting a scary movie, but the pacing was too slow and the build up was too subtle to work.  Aside from that, Micah was an absolute manchild asshole, and my towering rage at him surpassed any suspense that could have been built. 

[ShadowDog]

It is impossible to build suspense if you don't care about the characters enough to stick around.  He was a complete egotistical asshole, she was a sniveling punching bag who put up with him endangering their lives with her reacting with little more than the occasional whining.  If I hadn't paid what I did for the film and RiffTrax, I wouldn't have spent 10 seconds with either of them.  You can't build suspense unless the audience cares about the people, or unless the audience wants to be made to feel suspense despite all reasons to the contrary.

I hadn't really put it into words but this right here was key for me.  I didn't like either character, and there were only two to chose from.  If you don't like anybody in the movie, it's hard to care what happens to them.  Beyond all the boring shit, this was the ultimate failure of the movie.

[Thrifty]

It is impossible to build suspense if you don't care about the characters enough to stick around.  He was a complete egotistical asshole, she was a sniveling punching bag who put up with him endangering their lives with her reacting with little more than the occasional whining.  If I hadn't paid what I did for the film and RiffTrax, I wouldn't have spent 10 seconds with either of them.  You can't build suspense unless the audience cares about the people, or unless the audience wants to be made to feel suspense despite all reasons to the contrary.

I hadn't really put it into words but this right here was key for me.  I didn't like either character, and there were only two to chose from.  If you don't like anybody in the movie, it's hard to care what happens to them.  Beyond all the boring shit, this was the ultimate failure of the movie.

Was I the only one who thought that, because the task of building audience sympathy with the characters was botched so terribly, that the movie actually had a happy ending?

[CHF01]

Hey MJ, are you planning on writing a review for Return of the Jedi? 

[LucasM]

^I've heard it said that G.K Chesterton could say more in one sentence than most people could with a full chapter. It''s an admirable talent.

But I must add, I'm not interesting in flaming... at least not on a silly movie. If I'm going to flame-on it's going to be over something important to the fabic of our very existence. Like whether Mike or Joel was the better MST host. 

[I realize I don't have to explain myself, and potentially you weren't referring to me.]  Possibly I'm misunderstanding the use of the word "flame" in this post (and in Piobman's), but I thought my posts have been measured, logical responses to specifics.  I think of flaming as long rants with sometimes limited relationship to the present topic, but basically just "going off" on something.  Yes, I got angry at the characters' stupidity: for 20-somethings that apparently are successful enough to own a large 3-bedroom house in San Diego who can't manage to keep their demon-baiting in their pants for three lousy days until the demon-hunter can come, when that demon hasn't done anything but the occasional noise for the previous 23-25 years of the girl's life.  But the majority of what I wrote was calmly addressing points I felt were mistaken in the prior post(s).

But you are right: it was still a tremendous waste of my time and energy for this turd of a film.  It happened to be that (unfortunately) I sat down and looked on here when it was 5am (Eastern time zone) and I still had not slept yet, so I was too far gone to think rationally about the lack of value to clarifying the points I did.     Maybe I should put a sign on my computer, "no explanations after 2am". 

[D.B. Barnes]

^I've heard it said that G.K Chesterton could say more in one sentence than most people could with a full chapter. It''s an admirable talent.

But I must add, I'm not interesting in flaming... at least not on a silly movie. If I'm going to flame-on it's going to be over something important to the fabic of our very existence. Like whether Mike or Joel was the better MST host. 

Maybe I should put a sign on my computer, "no explanations after 2am". 

If people followed that rule, the internet would be a lot less entertaining.

Type on, Lucas. Type on!!!

[MightyJack]

^I've heard it said that G.K Chesterton could say more in one sentence than most people could with a full chapter. It''s an admirable talent.

But I must add, I'm not interesting in flaming... at least not on a silly movie. If I'm going to flame-on it's going to be over something important to the fabic of our very existence. Like whether Mike or Joel was the better MST host. 

[I realize I don't have to explain myself, and potentially you weren't referring to me.]  Possibly I'm misunderstanding the use of the word "flame" in this post (and in Piobman's), but I thought my posts have been measured, logical responses to specifics.  I think of flaming as long rants with sometimes limited relationship to the present topic, but basically just "going off" on something.  Yes, I got angry at the characters' stupidity: for 20-somethings that apparently are successful enough to own a large 3-bedroom house in San Diego who can't manage to keep their demon-baiting in their pants for three lousy days until the demon-hunter can come, when that demon hasn't done anything but the occasional noise for the previous 23-25 years of the girl's life.  But the majority of what I wrote was calmly addressing points I felt were mistaken in the prior post(s).

But you are right: it was still a tremendous waste of my time and energy for this turd of a film.  It happened to be that (unfortunately) I sat down and looked on here when it was 5am (Eastern time zone) and I still had not slept yet, so I was too far gone to think rationally about the lack of value to clarifying the points I did.     Maybe I should put a sign on my computer, "no explanations after 2am". 

Gee, I'm sorry, that in no way was not intended as a slam on you. I should have been clearer or at least divided my post better. The first part was about your talking about being succinct (which I wish I could do myself sometimes) – the second was referring the previous flame-on comment. Because I was tempted to flame-on... but then I thought, you know this movie isn't worth that much attention (from me).

If we were discussing a good scary movie, like say, Psycho, then I'd have been more cogent (he, he, I think I'll start a drinking game for every time someone uses the words cogent, or hyperbole on this board) but "hackneyed turd" is about all the enthusiasm I can muster for this dreck.

You presented your ideas clearly and measured and I apologize if I said something that came off as insulting to you.

Hey MJ, are you planning on writing a review for Return of the Jedi? 

I do, thanks for asking – the Rifftrax player doesn't work for me anymore and the synching up of TV and laptop is kind of a pain since I normally break these up into 2 days... I've bought the trax but I'm waiting for my friend to author me a DVD (makes it easier on me, review wise, stopping and starting and back tracking as I do – oh wait, are we supposed to talk about that –authoring- in the open?). I'll probably be a little behind from now on, unless curiosity forces my hand as it did with this one.

[Piobman]

^I've heard it said that G.K Chesterton could say more in one sentence than most people could with a full chapter. It''s an admirable talent.

But I must add, I'm not interesting in flaming... at least not on a silly movie. If I'm going to flame-on it's going to be over something important to the fabic of our very existence. Like whether Mike or Joel was the better MST host. 

[I realize I don't have to explain myself, and potentially you weren't referring to me.]  Possibly I'm misunderstanding the use of the word "flame" in this post (and in Piobman's), but I thought my posts have been measured, logical responses to specifics.  I think of flaming as long rants with sometimes limited relationship to the present topic, but basically just "going off" on something.  Yes, I got angry at the characters' stupidity: for 20-somethings that apparently are successful enough to own a large 3-bedroom house in San Diego who can't manage to keep their demon-baiting in their pants for three lousy days until the demon-hunter can come, when that demon hasn't done anything but the occasional noise for the previous 23-25 years of the girl's life.  But the majority of what I wrote was calmly addressing points I felt were mistaken in the prior post(s).

But you are right: it was still a tremendous waste of my time and energy for this turd of a film.  It happened to be that (unfortunately) I sat down and looked on here when it was 5am (Eastern time zone) and I still had not slept yet, so I was too far gone to think rationally about the lack of value to clarifying the points I did.     Maybe I should put a sign on my computer, "no explanations after 2am". 

I was just being sarcastic. Don't take offense to it. It just seemed like the direction it was headed!