George saw the movie during Fantastic Fest last month. Read his take here. Mine follows below:

Rarely do movie critics talk about the actual experience of seeing a film in the theater in their actual review. It happens sometimes, but it’s usually presented as an aside (the film broke, the crowd responded this way, the sound was bad, etc.) and not something that’s necessarily essential to the enjoyment of the film.

For this review, there is simply no way around it.

First off, the ultra-low-budget suspense flick “Paranormal Activity” has based its entire ad campaign around audience reaction. The trailers and ads show movie theater crowds jumping in their seats and screaming in horror while viewing the picture.

Secondly, Paramount has been rolling it out at midnight shows only in select cities (until this weekend’s wider release), so the viewing hour limits the movie to its intended demographic—college kids up for a late-night scare. It also means that with only one showing a night the shows sell out quicker.

This means the movie’s been playing to packed crowds who are already predisposed to buy into its premise of a young couple haunted by a demon who tape the bizarre happenings in their home on a video camera, especially if they watch any number of the night-vision “reality” shows based on supernatural phenomena on A&E or MTV.

One thing must be mentioned: Since 1999’s similarly themed “The Blair Witch Project,” audiences are smarter about the way their images and movies are presented, so filmgoers going in believing that this is documentary footage left behind by real people are probably few and far between.

All of the above-mentioned points factor into how this movie played for me. To put it simply, it didn’t.

Is that the fault of stars Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat? Not really. The acting is quite naturalistic, considering some of the contrived things they have to do and say to hit the beats of the screenplay while convincing us that the footage is real.

Is it the fault of writer/director Oren Peli? Partially. His adherence to the premise that all video was shot by Micah and Katie is part of the movie’s fly-on-the-wall appeal, but it’s also its biggest stumbling block when it comes to plot. It’s hard to believe the couple wouldn’t leave their home or seek help outside of a psychic who leaves them high and dry, bolting from the front door because of angry demon vibes.

Mostly, it’s the fault of a friend of mine who sat two people down from me.

To put it mildly, the movie is a slow build. In fact, like “Blair Witch,” there’s barely any onscreen “action” at all. The whole less-is-more approach wasn’t working for my friend, who made it known about 20 minutes into the movie that something “better happen soon.” As the movie wore on, it wasn’t simply whispers to his girlfriend or the guy next to him anymore, it was loud exhortations directed at the screen or to everyone else in the theater.

When I hate a movie, I’ll admit that my body language can give it away sometimes. I’ll even admit to a groan or loud sigh every now and then. For the most part, though, I try to keep that stuff in check.

When my friend started reaching across the guy between us to tap me on the leg and talk to me, I knew I was sunk. I waved him off and gave him dirty looks, trying to show my displeasure silently (while still concentrating on the film), but he continued to show his disgust with the movie out loud. (And with a great big “rock fist down.”)

Here’s the funny part: For some of the film, I was right there with him. I agree with him that it was hard to get into and slow to get going. There is a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, however, that you must accept in order for the movie to work for you. My friend was “out” of the film early and stayed out. (Another friend was literally out—he left 30 minutes into the movie and decided to have a drink at a nearby bar until the movie was over!)

So the bottom line is—did “Paranormal Activity” work for me? No. That night, it didn’t.

I tried to concentrate on the movie, but my environment conspired to get the best of me. (Admittedly, I even dozed off for a second or two towards the middle of the movie and was jarred awake by my friend in kind of a “ha ha—gotcha!” moment for him.)

But this brings up an interesting question: If the suspension of disbelief is such a hurdle, how does the movie play in huge, sold-out theaters, where one would expect that more people means more hecklers? I would think there would be a lot of haters, but maybe the rest of the crowd would intimidate them into shutting up.

The theater I saw it in held about 100 people, fairly spread out, and there were waiters bringing food and drink orders and checks. Their mere appearance tended to draw me out of the movie a little more too.

Or—am I simply making excuses for a movie that I never really believed? There was an impressive level of skill on display in shaping the threadbare story around the reality-style limitations it required. But I only noticed these things occasionally and on a formal level, rather than actually getting into the movie on an emotional level.

Will the movie play on TV better because the cheapo camerawork suits the medium better or will it be impossible to stay involved in with interruptions galore at home?

I can only tell you about my experience and it was mixed at best. I guess this is one of those times where I’m glad I have a rating that doesn’t commit too firmly in either direction. Instead, it’s complete neutrality. I’m happy to give “Paranormal Activity” the Swiss fist and I’m happy to ask you about your experience seeing the movie.

Comment away …

Tags: angry, audience, crowd, hated, is paranormal activity real, loud, movie, noisy, paranormal activity, paranormal activity movie review, paranormal activity review, REAL, review, sold out, theater

Paranormal Activity review, Gentlemen Broncos review, Solomon Kane review, Van Diemen’s Land review

Historically, the first day of Fantastic Fest is pretty light on film, but I still managed to get four movies in.  Of the four, three featured filmmakers or actors in attendance and spirited Q&As.

“Van Diemen’s Land” - Minor Rock Fist Up

“I am a quiet man,” an unseen voice almost mournfully says in Gaelic narration of “Van Diemen’s Land.”

His identity is not immediately clear as we join the story of eight malnourished convicts escaping into the unforgiving Tasmanian Wilderness—not exactly a place rife with edible wildlife.

After a few days of tense exchanges, macho bravado, nervous folk songs, and strained humor, the possibility of cannibalism is raised.  Apparently, they hear that flesh taste like pork. This film is an adaptation of the legendary Australian story of one of the fastest cases of humans resorting to cannibalism.

I’m pretty sure I liked this movie, and I hope it finds an audience.  The performances are stellar, the dialogue is strong, the humor effective and appropriate, and the creeping sense of dread well communicated.

But it’s difficult to make a movie about a group of exhausted, emotionally drained men without making the audience feel some of that exhaustion.

The worst part for me is that the epilogue of the movie wrapping up the story of the narrator actually seems like it would have been the more interesting tale to tell. It’s not just what happened that made this person noteworthy, it’s what happened after.

“Gentleman Broncos” - Solid Rock Fist Up

“Gentleman Broncos” is the latest from Jared Hess, director of “Napoleon Dynamite” and “Nacho Libre.”

His films have a certain flavor to them.  If either of his first two movies were like candy to you, you’ll love “Gentleman Broncos.”

It’s the story of an aspiring teenage writer who finds his science-fiction novel plagiarized by a creatively tapped and desperate cult author. Meanwhile, a strained friendship with two amateur filmmakers leads to a shoddy filmic adaption.

One of the pleasures of “Gentleman Broncos” is the manner in which these three separate visions of the same basic story are peppered throughout.

The fact that the core story is wonderfully, hilariously juvenile makes the movie even better.  Expect teenagers to be quoting Jemaine Clement and Sam Rockwell for months.

This film won’t convert the haters who have problems with painfully awkward human cartoons, but those who were lukewarm to Hess’ films could love this like I did.

One curious thing: The filmmaker’s continued affinity for 80’s technology such as VHS camcorders and calculator watches has the side effect of making it seem like nearly everyone in the film lives in abject poverty.

“Solomon Kane” - Rock Fist Way Up

Solomon Kane is a lesser known character from Robert E. Howard, creator of “Conan the Barbarian.” In comics, Solomon Kane was a sword-carrying Puritanical hunter of witches and eradicator of evil who famously never had an explicit origin.

This film attempts to remedy that.

It starts with a bloody and vicious raid on a castle, lead by a charismatic and vicious man in black.  Knowing next to nothing going in, my first thought was “Wow, what a great villain for this Solomon Kane guy to fight.”

Of course, that man is Solomon Kane.

The film that is built around his journey is a bloody, gritty, and fun movie that spins the tale of an evil sorcerer, a pact with a devil, a masked rider, an army of zombie-like warriors, and a quest for redemption.

People have compared this to “Van Helsing,” but only because this is the movie that “Van Helsing” (directed by Stephen Sommers of “G.I. Joe” fame) should have been.

This film relies heavily on practical effects and real locations, so its short patches of slightly dodgy CGI are immensely forgiveable.

If more fantasy films were this satisfying, the genre would still be regularly producing blockbusters.

It also contains the single best twist on a crucifixion scene ever.

“Paranormal Activity” - Solid Rock Fist Up

This movie is a minor miracle.  For once, the hype is justified.  This is not the next “Blair Witch Project.” It’s better.

Equal parts engaging reality show and creepy ghost story, “Paranormal Activity”’s biggest strengths are its relate-ability and its believability.

The relationship at the core of this movie is fully realized by two actors who don’t look like movie stars. Their charm carries the film and helps ground it in a way that gives the scares greater impact.

His sense of curiosity helps grow the audience’s own; her fear feeds yours. Every bad decision can be explained by human nature and the stubbornness that is particularly common with long-term relationships in crisis.

This movie may be small in scale, but it uses every resource it has brilliantly.  Near-seamless special effects make it good. Creative editing and smart pacing make it better. The performances truly make it great.

This is an ideal date movie. The experience is heightened by the reactions of strangers. The woman next to me kept muttering “Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god.”  They should mix her voice into the soundtrack.

Ultimately, “Paranormal Activity” is disturbingly good and good at disturbing.

Day Two’s coverage is right here. >>

Tags: 2009, fantastic fest, gentlemen broncos, movie, paranormal activity, review, reviews, solomon kane, van diemen's land